CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRMjV
3 1924 092 371 958
DATE DUE
DECT^rWfTPM.
Inter!i
)rary
PHINTEDIN U.S.A.
Cornell University
Library
The original of tiiis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924092371958
COMPLETE WORKS
Most Rev. John Hughes, D.D,
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW YORK.
COMPKISING HIS
SERMONS, LETTERS, LECTURES,
SPEECHES, ETC.
CmfttUg CffmgiUtr from t\t \itf>\ ^mmi,
AND EDITED BY
LAWRENCE KEHOE.
VOL. I.
NEW YORK:
LAWRENCE KEHOE, 7 BEEKMATT STREET;
LONDON; RICHARDSON & SON, 26 PATERNOSTER ROW;
9 CAPEL STREET, DUBLIN ; AND DERBY.
SAN FRANCISCO : MICHAEL FLOOD.
1866.
^cornell\
UNIVERSflYf
^LIBRARV^
Entered according to Act of CongreES, In the year 1864,
BY LAWRENCE KEHOE,
In the Olorli'e Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New Tork.
I^P
EDWARD O. JENKINS,
6TEBE0TYPSK A PB^NTRB,
No. 20 North William Street
PREFACE.
Having heard many persons, admirers of the late Archbishop
Hughes, express a wish that his public lectures, letters and
speeches might be collected and published iu book form, the com-
piler of this volume has, after some deliberation, undertaken the
task, which, he trusts, will prove acceptable to the Catholic com-
munity in general. The following pages are the first installment,
and vill be immediately followed by another volume of about the
same size, wMch will complete the work. The biographical sketch
merely touches upon the principal events in His Grace's career, but
is the most complete one yet published. The speeclies of His Grace
on the School Question — a question which first brought him prom-
inently before the New York public — will, no doubt, be read with
pleasure as well as profit by thousands who have heard of these great
efforts of Dr. Hughes, but who have had no chance heretofore of
reading them. His speeches before the Board of Aldermen, as well
as his great Three Days' Speech in Carroll Hall on this ques-
tion, will be found in this volume in full. Other important docu-
ments are also given entire. The concluding volume will also
contain important writings of Archbishop Hughes, which should be
read by every Catholic in the land.
The Editor,
New York, September, 1864.
CONTENTS TO VOLUME I.
PAGE
Biographical Sketch of Aeohbishop Hdgees 7
Funeral Ce'rebionies 15
Names op Bishops and Priests Present IG
Oration op Kt. Rev. John McCloskiet, D. B 17
Resolutions op the Tr0stees op St. Patrick's Cathedral — The Courts — Com-
mon Council, State Legislature, etc., on the Death op Archbishop
Hughes 22
Letters prom the President of the United States, Seoretaet Seward and
Governor Seymour 24
Month's Mind Ceremonies 25
Sermon of Et. Rev. John Loughlin, D. D 26
WRITINGS OF ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
Sermon on Catholic Emancipation, Preached in 1829 ■. 29
THE SCHOOL QUESTION—
Speech in St. Patrick's School-Room, July 20th, 18i0 41
" Basement op St. James' Church, July 27th, 1840 48
Address op the Catholics to their Fellow-Citizens of the City and State
of New York— Speech of Archbishop Hughes 50
Speech in Basement of St. James' Church, August 24th, 1840 66
Letter to "Evening Post" in Answer to an "Irish Catholic." 79
Speech in Basement op St. James' Church, Sept. 7th, 1840 81
" " , " " " 21st, 1840 96
Petition op the Catholics of New York to the Board op Aldermen for a
Portion op the Common School Fund 102
Speech in Basement of St. James' Church, Oct. 5th, 1840 107
" " " " "19th, 1840 114
" BEFORE City Council— First Day 125
" " " —Second Day 143
Great Speech in Carroll Hall— First Day ; 183
" " —Second Day 197
" «' —Third Day 211
Review of Me. Ketchum's Rejoinder 227
Speech in Washington Hall, Feb. 11th, 1841 242
in Carroll Hall, March 30th, 1841 246
" April 20th, 1841 254
IN Washington Hall, June 1st, 1841 262
IN Caeeo'll Hall, Oct. 25th, 1841 270
" Oct. 29th, 1841 275
VI CONTENTS.
PAGE
Address to Bishop Hdghes. ^®*
Bishop Hughes' Reply to Addbess 289
Lettee on State op Ireland 297
Lectdre — '' Life and Times of Pins VII." 299
CiKCDLAR Letter to the Clbbgt, 1842 21*
Pastoral Letter in 1842, on Administration of the Sacraments, Secret So-
cieties, Church Property, etc 31^
Apology for Pastoral Letter, in Reply to the Strictures of Four Editors
of Political Newspapers 327
Apology Continued— First Letter to David Hale 335
" " —Second " " 3*3
" " —Third " " 348
Lecture — " Influence of Christianity on Civilization." '. 351
Lecture — " Influence op Christianity on Social Servitude." 371
Meeting ot tee New York Church Debt Association — Speech of Bishop
Hughes, May 3d, 184il 386
Speech of Bishop Hughes, May 10th, 1841 396
" May S6th, 18.41 399
Letter to Bishop Hughes, with his Reply 402
Introduction to Mr. Livingston's Book on V Imputation." 406
Lecture — " The Mixture of Civil and Ecclesiastical Power in the Middle
Aces." 417
State op the Diocese of New York in 1841 437
Extracts from Journal of a Voyage across the Atlantic 443
Letters on the Moral Causes which produced the Evil Spirit of the Times —
First Letter — To Mayor Harper 460
Second " —To Col. Stoijp 463
Third " — " 486
' Fourth " — " .•; 493
Alleged Burning of Bibles in Clinton County, N. Y 501
The Jubilee of 1842 505
Sermon on the Jubilee 606
The Latest Invention 510
Lecture— "The Importance of a Christian Basis for the Science op Political
Economy" 513
Eulogy on Bishop Fenwick 534
Lecture — Antecedent Causes of the Irish Famine in 1847 544
Sermon before both Houses of Congress 558
" KiRWAN." .^ 673
Letters on the Importance op being in Communion with Christ's One, Holt,
Catholic and Apostolic Church, Addressed to a Private Reasoner —
First Letter 577
Second " 583
Third " 59O
Fourth " 595
Fifth >' 002
Sixth " 609
Seventh " gjg
Eighth " ; 622
Ninth " 628
" Kihwan" [Jnmasked 636
Appendix 665
LIFE
MOST REVEREND JOHN HUGHES, D. D.
" Lives of great men oft remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footsteps on the sands of time."
^* He was a man ; take him for all in all.
We flhall not look upon his like again." •
Ireland, prolific land of genius, has given to Europe some of the most
profound divines, greatest generals, and ablest statesmen. England,
France, Spain, Austria, all have had the benefit of Irish talent and Irish
worth. But it is America that has received the great influx of Irishmen, —
men of exalted, as well as of humble birth, and she received them with
open arms and generous heart, for which generosity they have paid her
back, in the pulpit, the council-chamber, and the battle-field, an hundred-
fold. It is only in America that Irish genius and talent have had a " fair
field and no favor^" and, consequently, have taken the lead in almost every
department of life. Am9ng those who came to this country in the early
part of the present century, from that misgoverned "Isle of the Ocean,"
was the father of Archbishop Hughes. He settled in Chambersburg, Pa.,
where his only surviving son, Mr. Michael Hughes, now resides, and where
the ashes of the beloved parents of our late Archbishop repose.
The Most Reverend John H>ughes, D. D., was born in the town of Ologher,
County Tyrone, Ireland, towards the close of the year 1798. He was the
son of a respectable farmer of small means, and emigrated to America in
1817 on account of the disabilities to which his religion was subjected in
his native country. His father had preceded him to this country a short
time, and had purchased a small farm, and tfiken up his abode near
Chambersburg, Pa. On young Hughes' arrival in this country, his father
placed him with a florist to learn the art of gardening ; but having little
taste for such pursuits, and feeling within himself a call to till and cultivate
the " Gai'den of the Lord," he devoted his spare time to study, and as soon
as his engagement expired, entered the Theological Seminary at Mount St.
Mai-y's, Emmettsburg, Md., where he remained for seven years, being
employed almost from the first as a teacher. He was ordained Priest in
the year 1836, in Philadelphia, and was appointed to the pastoral charge
a)
8 LIFE OF AECHBISHOP HU-QHES.
of St. Joseph's Church of that city. Here his sermons attracted general
attention, and were attended by the ilite of Philadelphia. In 1829 he
preached a powerful sermon in St. Joseph's Church, in commemoration of
the great event just accomplished in Ireland through the untiring efforts
of Daniel O'Connell — Catholic Emancipation. This sermon was his first
great effort at pulpit eloquence, and it was a grand success. It was
jjublished in pamphlet form, and was inscribed to Daniel O'Connell.
About this time, the Anti-Catholic feeling in the United States was just
commencing. This opposition was due, in great part, to the rapid progress
Catholicity was then making, which opened the eyes of the bigots of the
various sects to the fact, that there was a livin;/ Church in their midst ; as
well as to several filthy Anti-Catholic publications of the " Maria Monk "
class, which had a large circulation throughout the country. Among the
champions who was determined to put down the " Power of Rome " in
this country was the Rev. John Breckenridge, a Presbyterian minister. In
1830, Mr. Breckenridge challenged the Rev. J. Hughes to discuss the
question: "Is the Protestant religion the religion of . Christ ?" The con-
troversy was earned on in the Catholic and Presbyterian newspapers for
several months, and attracted so much attention, that the articles were
subsequently collected in a volume, which had for a time a wide circula-
tion. In 1834, Mr. Breckenridge renewed the challenge, by proposing an
oral discussion on the question : " Is the Roman Catholic religion in any
or in all its principles and doctrines inimical to civil or religious liberty ?"
Bishop Hughes, then only a priest, immediately came forward as the
Catholic champion. The debate was published in book form in 1836, and
has gone through several editions since, all of which have been published
by Catholics, and was regarded with great interest by the public of both
parties. In 1833, he founded and had erected St. John's Church, i)i Phila-
delphia, and was its pastor as long as he remained in that city.
In 1837, Bishop Dubois, of New York, having demanded, on account of
, age and infirmity, some relief from the cares of the Episcopate, the Holy
See appointed Bishop Hughes Coadjutor. He was consecrated Bishop of
Basilopolis, in New York, January 9th, 1838, by Bishop Dubois, assisted
by Bishops Kenrick, of Philadelphia, and Fenwick, of Boston. In about
two weeks after. Bishop Dubois was attacked by paralysis, from which he
never wholly recovered. In the following year the Pope appointed Bishop
Hughes Administrator of the Diocese ; and although he did not succeed to
the full dignity of Bishop until the death of Bishop Dubois, in 1843, the
government of that portion of the Church was thenceforth entirely in his
hands. His first measures were directed to a reform in the tenure of
Church property, which was then vested in lay trustees, a system that had
more than once given rise to scandalous conflicts between the congrega-
tions and the Episcopal authority. All the churclies in the city, at that
time only eight in number; were heavily in debt, and five were bankrupt, and
on th(j point of being sold. Bishop Hughes resolved to consolidate the
Church debts, to remove them from the management of laymen and to
secure the titles in his own name. In this undertaking he was violently
LIFE 01" AECHBISIIOP HUGHES. 9
opposed by theTrusteeg, and was at the time only partially successful, but
the most pressing debts were paid off, and harmony was eventually
restored. His plan, however, succeeded in the end, and before his death
he had the pleasure of seeing the eight churches more than quadrupled,
and all of them nearly -out of debt. Such was Bishop Hughes' foresight,
that all his undertakings proved successful in the end.
In 1839, Bishop Hughes visited Prance, Austria, and Italy, to obtain
pecuniary aid for his diocese. On his return he applied himself with great
energy to the cause of Catholic education. Already, during the previous
year, he had purchased property at Fordham, in Westchester County, for
the purpose of establishing a college. He now completed its organization,
and it was opened in 1841, under the name of St. John's College.
During his absence in Europe, the School Question was discussed in
weekly meetings, held by the Catholics, in the school-house attached to St.
Patrick's Cathedral. The Bishop arrived from Europe early in July, and
attended the weekly meeting in the school-room, on July 30th, at which
he made his first great speech against the Common School System then
existing in this City and State, and in relation to the Common SchoolFund.
This speech will be found in full in another part of this book, and will be
read with interest, as it will give the Catholics of to-day a knowledge of
wliat the Bishop and the Catholics of that day had to contend against.
The dispute on the School Question continued, and brought the Bishop
still more prominently before the public. He made speeches at nearly all
the meetings. These speeches attracted the attention not only of the
Catholics of this country, but even of Europe ; and the expose of the
school-books then in use was extensively copied and commented upon by
the European press. It was charged by Catholics that the Common
Schools were sectarian in character, and they complained of the injustice
of taxing them for the support of schools to which they could not con-
scientiously send their children. An association was formed for obtaining
relief It was demanded either that the taxes should be removed or that
a change should be made in the system of education. The Catholics
petitioned the Common Council in September, 1840, to designate seven
Catholic Schools as " entitled to participate in the Common School Fund,
upon complying with the requirements of the law." This petition will
also be found in its proper place in this volume. Eemonstrances to this
petition wore sent in on behalf of the " Public School Society," by its
presideiit, K. C. Cornell, the pastors of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and
other Protestant clergy, and on October 29th and 30th, both parties
appeared before the Common Council, and occupied the two days in
debate. "The Public School Society " was represented by Messrs.. Theo-
dore Sedgwick and Hiram Ketchum as counsel; the Rev. Drs. Bond, Bangs,
and Reese, and a Mr. Peck on behalf of the Methodist Episcopal Church ;
Rev. Dr. Knox on the part of the Reformed Dutch Church, and Rev. Dr.
Spring for the Presbyterian Church. Bishop Hughes answered them all in
an elaborate speech of several hours, which can be found in full in this
volume. It is a most interesting document, and will be read with general
10 IJFE OF ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
interest. But notwitUstandiBg the able and lucid speech of the Bishop,
the petition was not granted.
The Catholics, under the lead of their talented Bishop, were determined
not to give the matter up so easily. They presented a petition to the
State Legislature, praying for redress. A bill in their favor passed the
Assembly, but was lost in the Senate, and was finally referred to Hon.
.John C. Spencer, Secretary of State and Superintendent of Common
Schools, who reported unfavorably of the Public School System. This
alarmed the Society, and they sent a remonstrance to the Legislature
against granting the petition of the Catholics. Both parties had a bearing
before a Committee of the Senate; Hiram Ketchum appearing for the
Society, and James W. McKeon and Wright Hawkes for the Catholics.
A bill was framed in conformity with the recommendations of the Secre-
tary of State, and put before the Senate, but after a long debate was finally
postponed. As Mr. Ketchum's speech was published in fall, and exten-
sively circulated, while those on the Catholic side were not even noticed,
Bishop Hughes announced that he would publicly review and refute Mr.
Ketchum's speech im Carroll Hall in this city. The meetings took place
on the evenings of the 16th, 17th, and aisit of June, 1841, and were
attended by immense audiences. These speeches are very long, and on
account of their importance in regard to the School Question, are given
in full in these pages.
In the ensuing election the School Question assumed a striking promi-
nence in the political canvass. The Catholics, by the advice of Bishop
Hughes, held meetings in what was then known as " Carroll Hall," (now
St. Andrew's Church), and nominated an independent ticket. The result
of the election showed them to be so strong that some modifications of the
existing School System were soon effected. Throughout this exciting
controversy Bishop Hughes was the animating spirit of his co-religionists,
and was called on at times to defend himself through the press against the
personal attacks of his opponents. About eight o'clock on electiou might,
April 13th, 1843, a gang of ruffians proceeded stealthily to the residence
of the Bishop, who was absent at the time, as were also the clergymen
belonging to the Presbytery, and proceeded to demolish the windows with
stones, brickbats and clubs. After wreaking their malice to a considerable
extent, they ran away to prevent recognition. At this time Bishop Hughes
was accused of abetting discord by some of the papers, in reply to which
he thus nobly defended himself: " I am not a man of strife nor contention.
My disposition is, I trust, both pacific and benevolent. As a proof of this
I may mention that I have never had a personal altercation with a human
being in my life— that I have never had occasion to call others, or be caUed
myself, before any civil tribunal on earth. It is true that public duty has
not unfrequently forced upon me the necessity of taking my stand in moral
opposition to principles which I deemed injurious and unjust. But even
then, I trust, 1 have made the distinction which Christian feeling suggests
between the cause and the person of the advocate arrayed against me."
What was true if him theuj was true of him to the hour of his death.
LIFE OF ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. H
In 1841 he established at Fordham the Theological Seminary of St.
Joseph. In August, 1843, he held the first Diocesan Synod of New York,
and ill a pastoral letter dated September 8, enforced its decrees respecting
Secret Societies and Church property. His " Rules for the Administration
of Churches without Trustees," published in 1845, embody the system
adopted by this Synod. About 1843, the extent of his diocese led him to
ask for a Coadjutor, and the Rev. J. McCIoskey, now Bishop of Albany,
was accordingly appointed, and was consecrated March 10, 1844. During
the Philadelphia riots in 1844, Bishop Hughes addressed a letter to Mayor
Harper, refuting slanders published against him by the Herald, Commercial
Advertiser, and other papers, in which the following passage occurs in
relation to himself: " He landed on these shores friendless, and with but
a few guineas in his purse. He never received the charity of any man ; he
never borrowed of any man without repaying ; he never had more than a
few dollars at a time ; he never had a patron — in the Church or out of it ;
and it is he who has the- honor to address you now as Catholic Bishop of
New York." This letter is also published in our pages, and is well worthy
of attentive perusal, as it shows who were the, enemies of the Bishop in
these trying times. - '
In December, 1845, Bishop Hughes sailed again for Europe, in order to
procure the services of Some of the Jesuits, Brothers of the Christian
Schools, and Sisters of Mercy. He was successful in his efforts, and
returned in the spring of 1846. A few months afterward he was solicited
by President Polk to accept a special mission to Mexico, but declined, on
account of having other more pressing duties to attend to. In 1847, at the
requL'st of both Houses of Congress, he delivered a lecture in the Hall of
Representatives at Washington, on " Christianity the only Source of Moral,
Social, and Politi-cal Regeneration." In this year his diocese was divided
by the erection of the Sees of Albany and Buffalo, Bishop Hughes retaining
all the counties of New York south of the parallel of 42 degrees,, witli a
part of New Jersey. In 1850 New York was raised to the dignity of
an Archiepiscopal See, and Archbishop Hughes went to Rome to
receive the pallium at the hands of the Pope. The first Provincial
Council of New York was held in 1854, and attended by seven suffragans,
the new Bishoprics of Brooklyn and Newark having been created the
preceding year. Soon after its close the Archbishop made another visit to
Rome, in order to be present at the definition of the dogma of the Immacu-
late Conception. On his return he was involved in a controversy with the
Honorable Erastus Brooks, editor of the New York Express and member of
fihe State Senate, growing ouit of the Church Property question. At the
petition of the Trustees of St. Louis' Church, Buffalo, a bill, which subse-
■ quently became a law, bad been introduced into the Legislature designed
to vest the title to all Church property in Trustees. In supporting this
measure, Mr. Brooks stated that Archbishop Hughes owned property in the
city of New York to the amount of about $5,000,000. The Archbishop,
12 LIFE OF AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
who was absent in Europe when Mr. Brooks made this assertion, came
forward as soon as he returned, and denied these assertions of Mr. Brooks
as incorrect, stating that the property was not his, but belonged to the
Church. A long discussion through the newspapers was the result. The
Archbishop subsequently collected the letters on both sides and published
them in a volume, with an introduction reviewing the Trustee system (New
York, 1855). The bill passed at this time, and which gave rise to this
discussion, was repealed by the Legislature of 1863.
On August 15th, 1858, he laid the corner-stone of a new Cathedral,
designed to be one of the grandest church edifices in America. The walls
are several feet high, but alas, he did not live to see the grand idea of his
life fulfilled. Shortly before the war broke out, the work on it was stopped,
to allow the foundations to settle, and has not yet been resumed. At the
ceremony on this occasion, it was computed that 150,000 people were
present. The Archbishop preached the sermon, and gave an outline of
his plan for its erection. He had sent circulars to several prominent
Catholics, stating that he wanted one hundred persons to subscribe one
thousand dollars each. To this circular one hundred and three persons
replied favorably ; two of whom were Protestants. In reference to the
new Cathedral, the following extract from his sermon will not prove unin-
teresting :
" Its special patron, as announced, is the glorious apostle of Ireland, St. Patrick,
— originally selected as patron of the first Cathedral commenced by our Catholic
ancestors in Mott Street fifty-two years ago. Their undertaking was indeed an
example of zeal and enterprise worthy of our imitation. They were very few,
they were very poor, but their ibinds were large as the Cathedral which they pro-
jected, and theirs were the hearts of great men. It might he said of them what
is mentioned in the Scriptures, but in a diflferent sense, that " there were giants in
those days." They laid the foundation of the first Cathedral, at a period when it
is said that the Catholics of New York were not numerous enough to fill the small
Church of St. Peter in Barclay Street — and that ten years after, when the Cathe-
dral was opened, it was necessary, during a short period, to shut up St. Peter's on
alternate Sundays, in order to accustom the people to find their way to the new
church, which was then considered to be far out of the city. Honor to the
memory of our ancestors of that period ! On the parchment containing the names
of the first patrons of the Cathedral now projected, the United States of America,
Ireland, Scotland, England, Belgium, Spain, France, and Germany, are all repre-
sented. The names of members belonging to the CathoUc Church from aU these
countries will slumber side by side on the parchment that engrosses them, and is
to be deposited in the cavity of that corner-stone. Neither can I omit to mention
that two gentlemen, who are not Catholics, have spontaneously contributed each
the amount specified in my circular. Their motive is not their belief at the pres-
ent moment in the Catholic religion. But it is that they are New Yorkers by
birth— that they have traveled in Europe, and that they are ambitious to see at
least one ecclesiastical edifice on Manhattan Island of which their native city will
have occasion to be proud. With regard to this anticipation, I can only say thtit
so far as depends on me, they shall not be disappointed."
But alas for the uncertainty of this life, the great Archbishop did not live'
to see the greatest work of his life accomplished ; but the broad founda-
tions and plans are laid, and will no doubt be completed by his successors.
Since that time the Archbishop has been a constant worker for the
LIFE OF ARCHBISHOP HUGHES. IS
progress of the Church, laying the corner-stones of new churches, dedicat-
ing them, administering confirmation, etc., and continually preaching on
all these occasions. All these efforts were gradually undermining his con-
stitution, and the close observer could see that he was fast failing in
general health. On the 1st of July, 1860, he made a most eloquent appeal
in St. Patrick's Cathedral to the Catholics of the diocese for their substan-
tial aid for the Holy Father, who at the time was reduced to dependence
onthe Faithful throughout the world by the loss of a portion of his domin-
ions. The appeal was nobly responded to, the amount raised being over
fifty thousand dollars. The Pope acknowledged the gift, and sent with his
reply a massive silver medal in testimony of his appreciation of the service
rendered him by the Catholics of New York.
In the fall of 1861, after the breaking out of the rebellion. Archbishop
Hughes, at the instigation of the Government, proceeded to Europe to
exert his influence in behalf of the Union cause. He then proceeded to
Eome, where he assisted at the ceremonies of the canonization of the Japa-
nese Martyrs, after which he visited Ireland on his way back to the United
States ; assisted at the laying of the comer-stone of the new Catholic
University in Dublin, and preached the sermon on the occasion, at which
nearly one hundred thousand persons were present. On his return (Septem-
ber 26th, 1862,) he was the recipient of a vote of thanks p,dopted by both
branches of the Common Council of the City of New York, ex-Senator
McMurray making the presentation addresg, which was replied to by his
Grace, and which was published at the time of its occurrence. Shortly,
after his return from Europe he delivered a discourse in St. Patrick's
Cathedral, in which he referred to his mission as follows : " I had no
message to deliver. Another could have carried the message ; but none
was committed to me except the message of peace — eicept the message
of explanation — except the message of correcting erroneous ideas — as
opportunity might afford me the chance of doing, in the same spirit and
to the same end. I have lost no opportunity, according to my discretion,
and that was the 'only qualification connected with my going. I have lost
no opportunity to accomplish these ends, to explain what was misunder-
stood, to inspire, so far as language of mine could have that effect, the
spirit of peace and good-will unto the people of foreign States towards
that one nation to which I exclusively owe allegiaijpe and fidelity. Tho
task was not so easy as some might have anticipated ; its accomplishment
has not been so successful as I could have desired. Nevertheless, I trust
that, directly or indirectly, my going abroad, in great part for the purpose
of aiding the country, has not been altogether without effect."
On the 1st of November, 1863, Archbishop Hughes wrote a letter to Mr.
Seward, Secretary of State, concerning his European mission, in which he
said : " What occurred on the other side I think it would be, at present,
improper for me to make public. T am not certain that any word, or act,
or influence of mine has had the slightest effect in preventing either Eng-
land or France from plunging into the unhappy divisions that have
tlireatened the Union of these once prosperous States. On the other hand,
14 LrBTE OF AECHEISHOP HITGHES.
I may say that no day — no hour even^ — was spent in Europe in Tvhicli I
did not, according to opportunity, labor for peace between Europe and
America. So far that peace has not been disturbed. But let America be
prepared. There is no love for the United States on the other side of the
water. Generally speaking, on the other side of the Atlantic the United
States are ignored, if not despised ; treated in conversation in the same
contemptuous language as we might employ towards the inhabitants of
the Sandwich Islands, or "Washington Territory, or Vancouver's Island,-or
the settlements of the Red River, or the Hudson Bay Territory. . . . From
tlie slight correspondence between us, you can bear me witness that I
pleaded in every direption for the preservation of peace, so long as the
slightest hope of the preservation remained. When all hope of this kind
had passed away, I was for a vigorous prosecution of our war, so that one
side or the other should find itself in the ascendency."
Although he did not place much stress on what he accomplislied in
Europe, yet it is inferred from events which have since occurred, that his
mission was in great part successful. His correspondence with the State
Department, if there were any, has not been published. With the remain-
ing portions of his Grace's life our readers are familiar, as, in fact, most
of them are with his whole life ; for he was a man dear to the hearts of
all the Catholics in the land, and all his sermons, speecTies, letters, etc.,
were read with the greatest avidity, even by those who differed from him
in religion. In July last, when the great riot was in progress. Archbishop
Hughes was requested by the Governor to address the people of his faith,
and thus assist in restoring peace. He consented, and, tbough very weak,
spoke to an immense assemblage from the balcony of his residence, corner
of Madison Avenue and Thirty-fourth Street. Since then his health has
gradually failed. And Sunday, January 3d, 1864, at seven o'clock in the
evening, he resigned his pure spirit into the hands of his Creator. The
last Sacraments of the Ohirch were administered to him by Father Quinn,
of St. Peter's, Barclay Street, some days previous, after which he gradually
sunk, until death relieved him of suffering. The immediate cause of his
death was " Bright's disease of the kidneys." He was at the time of his
death in the sixty-fifth year of his age.
His last moments were marked by the the calmness and resignation of
the true Christian. From eleven o'clock on Saturday night until one
o'clock Sunday afternoon, no great change was noticed in his condition.
He remained in the most feeble state, unable scarcely to lift his hand or
utter a word louder than a whisper, and that with the utmost difficulty.
About one o'clock Sunday afternoon he became unconscious, and lay in
that condition, with slight intervals of reason, until he died. He was
surrounded at the solemn moment by Bishop McCloskey, of Albany;
Bishop Loughlin, of Brooklyn; Rev. Dr. Neligan; Very Rev. Father
Starrs, V. G. ; Rev. Francis McNeirny, Secretary of the Archbishop;
Mother Angela, Superioress of St. Vincent's Hospital, and Mrs. Rodrigues
(both sisters of the Archbishop) ; Drs. James R. Wood and Alonzo Clarke,
and a number of clergymen and friends. About two hours before his
THE OBSEQUIES OF AECHBISHOP ntJGHBS. 15
death he was seized with a series of slight spasms, or gentle twitches.
Father Starrs stood by his bedside reading ptayers for his happy death,
and all priesent joined in the solemn ceremony. Bishop McCloskey recited
the prayers for the departing spirit, and while the voices of all were
repeating, in broken accents, the words of the responses, the soul of the
illustrious Archbishop quitted its earthly tenement. He died without the
slightest evidence of pain, peaceful, calm, and collected. His two sisters
stood by his bedside at the awful moment, and one of them, Moth^
Angela, who has been for many years a Sister of Charity, performed the
melancholy office of closing his eyes. So passed away one of the greatest
men of the age. A good Christian, an eloquent speaker, a profound
scholar, and a patriotic citizen ; one who loved his adopted country
dearly, and whose' greatest earthly ambition, next to his religion, was to
see her the noblest, most powerful, most united, as she is the freest nation
on the globe. In him America has lost a true citizen, and the Church ai
able defender and pious Divine. Bequiescat in Pace.
THE OBSEQUIES.
SEEMON OF BISHOP M'oLOSKET.
So much has been written and said about the obsequies, and ceremonies
attending them, as well as the "lying in state" of his Grace's remains, that
we think it unnecessaiy to recapitulate them here. Suffice it to say that
the body lay in state in the grand aisle of the Cathedral, for two days, and
Was visited daring that time by over 200,000 people of both sexes, many of
whom were Protestants. On Thursday, January 7th, 1864, the last
ceremonies of the Catholic Church were performed over the mortal remains
of the Most Bev. John Hughes, Archbishop of New York. To say that St.
Patridt's Cathedral was crowded, would convey but a faint idea of the
state of the building that day. Thousands could not gain admittance, and
had to stay in the streets adjoining the building.
The scene within the Cathedral was one peculiarly Catholic in all its
magnifleent details — one which out of the Catholic Church could not be
seen on earth. The mournful drapery that hung in heavy folds from the
arched roof to the floor, wrapping aisle, and arch, and column, wall and
doorway, in one sable veil, broken only by the no less funereal white ; the
stately catafalque occupying the centre aisle, and the statue-like figure that
lay beneath its gorgeous canopy, majestic even in death, yet placid and
calm to look upon — ay I
"Calm as a child's repose j'^
the sanctHairy and a great part of the grand aisle crowded with surpliced
priests, amongst whom wci-e eight Bishops of the Church ; the sad, sweet
music, swelling at times into wild sublimity of sound, filling the holy fane
with the strangely-mournful "melody of sweet sounds;" the vast concourse
of men and women that filled every part of the sacred edifice — all conspired
16 THE OBSEQUIES OF AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
to form a scene of imequaled grandeur and solemnity. Let the reader
imagine eight bishops and some two hundred priests, assembled from the
dioceses of Baltimore, Buffalo, Portland, Hartford, Philadelphia, Burlington,
.Boston, Newark, Brooklj'n, Albany, and from all parts of the Diocese of
IsTew York ; Jesuits were there, and Benedictines, Augustinians, Passionists,
Paulists, and Redemptorists, with two Canadian priests, sent by the Bishop
of Montreal to represent the Church of Canada. In addition to these were
present in the body of the Church a large number of the Sisters of Charity
and Sisters of Mercy, with several of the Christian Brothers. So much for
the Clergy and the Religious Orders. Amongst the Societies represented
were those of St. Vincent de Paul and the Xavier Alumni Association.
The City of New York was represented by its Mayor, Comptroller, Sheriff,
and the whole Municipal Council ; the Army by two Majors-General and
three Brigadiers-General, with many other distinguished officers. The
legal profession was represented by several judges and eminent lawyers,
among whom were Judges Daly, White, Sutherland, &c. Richard
O'Gorman, John McKeon, Thurlow Weed and several other distinguished
gentlemen were present at the cei'emonies.
At. ten o'clock precisely the procession of Bishops and Priests entered the
Cathedral, and assembled round the high altar, chanting the " Office for
the Dead." The Bishops were McCloskey, Albany; Wood, Philadelphia;
Timon, Buffalo ; Loughlin, Brooklyn ; Bayley, Newark ; De Goesbriand,
Burlington ; McFarland, Hartford, and Bacon, Portland. There were
nearly two hundred priests in and near the sanctuary ; amongst them were
Very Picv. W. Starrs, V. G., Administrator; Archdeacon McCarron, Rev.
Messrs. Preston, Quin, Cummings, D. D., E. McGuire, McSweney, D. D., P.
McGuire, Curran, McK^na, Brennan, C. O'Callaghan, Trainor, Boyce,
Hriady, P. Farrell, T. Farrell, Nobriga, McClosky, Everett, Mooney, Brady,
Birdsall, D. D. ; Morrogh, D. D. ; Ferrall, Loyzance, S. J. ; Daubresse, S. J. ;
Megnard, S. J. ; Schneider, S. J. ; McAleer, Orsenigo, Larkin, Lafont,
Gambosville, Donnelly, Teixchiera, Dautuer, Rudolphi, McCarty, Egan,
Clowry, McNulty, McMahon, McEvoy, Nicot, Hecker, Hewit, Brophy, Breen,
Madden, Dowling, R. Brennan, Barry, Farelly, Kinsella, Lynch, Neligan,
D. D., of the Diocese of New York.
Turner, V. G. ; McGuire, McDonnell, Keegan, Farrell, McGovem, Fagan,
Malone, Pise, D. D. ; O'Neil, Franscioli, Bohan, McKenna, Gleason, Crowley,
Creightou, McLoughlin, O'Beirne, Mclnroe, Farrelly, McGorrisk, Goetz,
Huber, Freel, of the Diocese of Brooklyn.
Very Rev. O'Hara, V. G. ; Rev. A. McConomy, Chancellor ; Sheridan
Mcnahan, Stanton, O. S. A. ; McLoughlin, Crane, O. S. A. ; Dunn, McAnany'
Ivieran, Lane, McGovem, Riordan, Fitzmaurice, Whitty, Hasplin, Davis
of the Diocese of Philadelphia. ' '
Moran, V. G. ; Doane, Secretary ; Kelly, J. McQuade, Hickey, J. Moran
Preitl), Hogan, Corrigan, Cauvain, Hogan, Venuta, De Concillio Brann
Hennesy, Madden, Lasko, Rogers, McKay, McNulty, Smith, Victor, Bi^oio'
Callan, Bowles, Senez, and a number of Passionists of the Diocese' of
Newark.,,
Oonroy, V. G. ; Wadhams, O'Neil, Doran, Noethen, Havermans, Daly
McLoughlin, of the Diocese of Albany. '
THE FU"N^EEAL OEATION. 17
"Williams, V. GoMcElroy, S. J.; Healy, Chancellor of the Diocese of Boston.
Very Rev. W. O'Reilly, Synnott, Oreighton, Hughes, Thomas Walsh, Daly,
O'Brien, Wahh, Smyth, W. J. O'Reilly, Sheridan, De Brucyker, of the Diocese
of Hartford.
Rev. Mr. Pare, Secretary to the Bishop of Montreal. Rev. Canon Valois,
of Montreal. Thomas Foley, Chancellor, and B. McColgan, of the Diocese of
Baltimore. The Irish Chm-cla was respectably and fitly represented on the
mournful occasion by Rev. D. "VV. Cahill, D.D. ; Rev. P. Conway, Headford,-
Tuam, and Rev. Mr. McKenna, of the Diocese of Derry.
The Solemn Mass of Requiem was celebrated by Bishop Timon, assi-sted by
Father Starrs as Assistant Priest ; Rev. Messrs. Quinn and Preston, Deacon
and Subdeacon ; Rev. Messrs. McNeirny and Farrell, Masters of Ceremonies.
.4.fter Mass the Right Rev. Bishop McCloskey ascended the pulpit, and read
for his text 7th and 8th verses. Chapter' IV., of the Second Epistle of St. Paul
to Timothy.
THE FUNERAL ORATION.
I have fought a g;ood fight; I have finished ray course ; I have kept the faith. For
the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, the just Judge, will
render to me at that day; and not to me only, but to them also who love His coming.
If ever the words of the living would seem to issue forth or be echoed back
from the lips of the dead, it is now, when these words which I have just uttered
would appear rather as proceeding from the mouth of the illustrious departed
prelate, whose venerated form, still clothed in all the insignia of his high and
sacred ofBce, lies here before us in placid dignity and calm repose. Still we
fancy we hear him saying, " I have fought the good fight ; I have finished my
course ; I have kept the faith. For the rest, there is laid up for me a crown
of justice, which the just Judge, the Lord, shall render to me." When these
words, beloved brethren, were first spoken, or rather written, by the great
Apostle of the Gfentiles, it v/asnot, as we know, in any spirit of boastfulness or
self-praise. They were meant simply as the earnest expression of the con-
sciousness which he felt that the term of his mortal labors was nearly expired;
that hi? work was iinished ; that his course was run ; and tha^ now, steadfast
in the faith, firm in hope, he only awaited the summons of his Divine Master
which should call him to his reward. They were intended, too, to give courage
and strength and consolation to the heart of his friend and fellow-laborer in the
apostleship, Timothy ; and not only to his heart, but to the hearts of all his
well-beloved spiritual children scattered throughout the Church, that when he
should have passed away from earth, when they should look upon his face and
hear his voice no more, they would not yield themselves up to immoderate
transports of grief, or indulge in tears of merely unavailing sorrow, but that
they would rather be sustained and comforted by that grand and glorious faith
which he had preached to them ; by the remembrance of all his services and all
his labors, of how he had toiled and endured, and suffered for them^ and how
by all this and through all this he had won a great reward. So even is it
now. Our heads indeed are bowed down in'sorrow, our hearts are oppressed
and overloaded with a mighty load of grief, because our good and great Arch-
bLshop is no more. He whom we had loved so well, he who was our father and
our benefactor, our kind and trusted friend ; he who was our pride and joy ;
ho who so long stood up among us as a pillar of safety and a tower of strength —
he is no n\pre. That voice of eloquence, those inspiring harangues, thoso
lessons of wisdom, those paternal counsels, those earnest and ceaseless exhor-
tations -wli^h so often deUghted our ears, instructed our mSids, filled with
transports of joy our hearts— all this we shall hear no more. And we would
18 THE OBSEQUIES OP ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
be tempted to yield ourselves up solely to the emotions of our grief were itnot
that we do still think that we hear him say, " Weep not, dear children, grieve
not for me. Be comforted by the thought that I have fought the good f ght ; the
work that was given me to accomplish has been finished. I have run my course ; I
have kept the faith. I now simply await my crown." Our loss, indeed, beloved
brethren, is great. How great, how deeply and sincerely felt, has been made
manifest by all that has been presented to our eyes since the moment his spirit
took its flight from this lower world, by all those manifestations of love and
gratitude and highest feeling which a devoted people have been paying by
. hundreds and thousands, day after day, in pressing forward to show their last
tribute of respect even to his cold remains, and to look upon his face once more
for the last time. And it is not our loss alone, not the loss of a single congre-
gation or a single diocese, but it is a loss of the whole Church, a loss felt by
every Catholic heart throughout the land. For we do not doubt, we cannot
doubt, that when the electric spark carried with its lightning speed tidings of
his death throughout the length and breadth of the country, it thrilled every
heart, especially every Catholic heart, with a pang of agony. And it filled all
breasts, even those who were not of the same church or faith, with sentiments
of deep and sincere regret. His fame and his name, and his services, too, were
of the whole country ; and, I may say, of the whole world. He stood forward
pre-eminently as the great Prelate of the Church in this country, as its able
and heroic champion, as the defender of its faith, as the advocate of its rights, as
the ever-vigilant guardian of its honor. He was not only a great prelate, but
he was a great man ; one who has left his mark upon the age in which he lived,
one who has made an impression upon every Catholic mind in this country
which time can never efface. Of such a life and such a character, and such a
history, beloved brethren, it would not be possible for me to speak in any
adequate or becoming manner at this solemn and mournful moment. I cannot
disguise from myself, I cannot disguise froai you, that I would at any time,
and least of all a time like this, be wholly unequal to the task. But on a
future and more fitting opportunity, on what is called the "Month's Mind,"
due justice, we cannot doubt, will be given to that character and to that life,
and to those heroic deeds and mighty services, by one more fit and more com-
petent for the task. I am here simply to mingle my sympathies with yours,
merely to unite with you in paying to our Archbishop upon this day the tribute
not only of our sincere admiration and deepest veneration and respect, tut also,
and still more, the tribute of our heartfelt gratitude and love. It was, beloved
brethren— as many of you may remember — it was on this day, the next after
the solemn feast of the Epiphany, just twenty-six years ago, that that same
form that is here before us, motionless, cold in death, stood up in the sanc-
tuary and before the altar of this Cathedral, nearly, almost precisely, upon the
very spot where those remains now are— for this Cathedral was not as spacious
then as now — stood up in all the fullness of health and vigor, in all the freshness
and maturity of great intellectual as well as physical strength and power, and
then knelt before the venerable Bishop Dubois to become a consecrated Bishop
on that day. The holy unctions were poured upon his head, the hands of
bishops v^ere imposed, solemn prayers of the Church were recited, the mitre
was placed upon his brow, the ring upon his finger, the crozier within his
hand, and he rose up to take his place from henceforth and to the end among
the Bishops of the Catholic Church. I well remember that grand and imposmg
scene, contrasting so mournfully with that which is now before me. I remember
Ihow all eyes were fij^pd, how all eyes were strained to get a glimpse of their
aiewly consecrated Bishop ; and as they saw that dignified and manly coun-
tenance, as they beheld those features beaming with the light* of inte'lect,
Ijearing already upon them the impress of that force of character which
jieculiarly marked him throughout his hfe, that firmness of resolution that
THE FUNERAL OEATION. 19
unalterable and unbending will, and yet blending at the same time that great
benignity and suavity of expression — when they marked the quiet composure
and self-possession of every look and every gesture of his whole gait and
demeanor — all hearts were drawn and warmed towards him. Every pulse
within that vast assembly, both of* clergy and of laity, was quickened with a
higher sense of courage and of hope. Every breast was filled with joy, and,
as it were, with a new and younger might. Great expectations, indeed, had
already been formed. We had heard of him before. We had heard of him as
the pastor of St. John's Church of Philadelphia — of his great eloquence as a
preacher — of his powerful arguments in discussion, in controversy, in debate ;
and we all looked forward with joy and longing expectation to the career upon
which he was just now entering. Those hopes were not disappointed ; those
expectations were even more than fully realized. It was with the greatest
reluctance that the then young bishop had consented to accept the dignily that
had been offered to him. There was a trying and delicate task before him.
His humility and his modesty shrank from it, and it was only in obedience to
the call of his superiors and the voice of the Church that he bowed in sub-
mission to please the holy will of God. But once having put his hand to the
plough, he never looked back. From that hour and from that moment all the
great energy of his mind, heart, soul, and of his whole being, was devoted to
the great' work which was before him. He was wUling to spend and to be
spent for Christ. He thought never of himself, he thought only of the Church
of which he wlis the consecrated prelate, of the religion and the interests
of religion which had been intrusted to his keeping. Never did he fail or
falter in fldeUty to his trust. We all know how soon the work, if it may
be so called, of regeneration commenced.
The good and venerable Bishop Dubois, bowed down by years, was too
glad to yield the government of such a vast diocese into younger and
stronger hands. Soon we felt, and all felt, that the reins of administration
were held by a masterly, and a firm, and at the same time, a prudent and
a skillful grasp. Immediately we saw the evidence everywhere around us
of the power of his mind, and the wisdom of his judgment, and the disin-
terestedness and single-heartedness of his zeal. I will not attempt to enter
into any details. For, as I have said before, this is not the time nor the
occasion. It is enough for us to remember, because it is within the memory
of all, what the Diocese of New York, the Catholic Church within the
State of New York, or I may say of this country, was when he commenced
his career as Bishop of this great See, and what it was when he laid down
his honors at the foot of his Divine Master, to bid us his last farewell.
There are five dioceses now where there was then but one; clergymen
count by hundreds where they were before numbered by tens ; churches,
institutions of charity, of religion, of learning, springing up on every side;
the whole character of the Catholic people raised and elevated till it seemed
that, from the eminence on which he stood himself, he raised up all his
people towards him. Great works had been commenced and finished by
him. Noble works had been commenced, but not given to him to com-
plete. One of the last acts of his life, as you remember, was the laying of
the foundation-stone of his noble -Cathedral. He did not expect, he did
not promise himself the joy and pleasure of living to see its full completion.
But he intended that he should begin it, that he should lay its broad
foundation-stone — that he would leave to a devoted clergy and to a loving
and generous people to carry it on, to raise it up and stand it there as the
ever-living and undying monument to his memory and to his name. It was
not to be expected that the life of such a great laborer would be carried to
very many years. He sank under the weight of his cares and his too great
toil. He had oyertaxed, many a time and oft, both his physical and his men-
20 THE OBSEQUIES OF AJtCHBISHOP HUGHES.
tal powers ; and strong and vigorous as they were, in the end they had to
succumb. He was in feeble health for the last four or five years of his hie.
Yet his mind was strong, and clear, and vigorous as ever. Still heknew
his strength was failing, that the term of his mortal career was drawing to
an end. When the announcement was made to him that his disea,se had
reached its crisis, and there was no longer hope of life, he received it with
the same calm courage and composure as he would the announcement of
any ordinary intelligence. Immediately he prepaTed himself. -The confes-
sor was sent for. He made his confession with all the humility of a child.
He received and was fortified by the last Sacraments of his Church. Then
he awaited calmly and peaceably the summons of his Lord. He spent his
last day simply in communing with his heart and 'his God. He uttered
but fiysr words. He gave a loving look of recognition to his friends who
came and stood by his bedside. He spoke by his looks, not by his lips.
After an illness not very long, after a brief struggle, he returned his great
and noble spirit to his God. He died full of years and full of honors,
leaving behind him a record which no prelate of the Church in this
country has ever left before, or will ever leave again. For it can be said
without any invidiousness that he stood out prominently and pre-eminently,
as we have already said, as the great prolate of the American Church. He
stood forth as its representative, as its advocate, and its defender; and a,!l
recognized his superior power and his great ability. In looking back now
upon that life through the softened and gentle lustre which death has
ahready thrown around it, it seems to rise up — its character appears to rise
up in even colossal sublimity and grandeur. All former prejudices are
forgotten, all animosities laid aside, all differences and collisions, either of
ciews or feelings and opinions, all melt and fall away in that august, and
imposing, and venerable presence. We think only of the great prelate and
the great man, of his mighty deeds, of his unequaled services to the Church ;
we think only of the rare endowments of his mind and heart, and how fully
and unreservedly they were devoted to the cause of his Divine Master. If
I may be permitted to say it, there was one trait that distinguished our
great Archbishop most particularly. It was his singular force, and clear-
ness, and vigor of intellect, his strength of will and his firmness of resolution.
He was a stranger to fear. His heart was full of undaunted courage. In
the presence of difliculties and dangers, his energies only seemed to be
roused to greater strength and higher exertion. He never quailed before
the presence of any difficulty, or any danger, or any trial ; not that he
trusted wholly and solely on himself. He trusted in his cause, and he
trusted in that God to whose service he had pledged himself and devoted
his entire being. With these rare endowments of mind were combined
also the gentler and more captivating qualities of the heart. He was to us
all the kindest of fathers ; he was to us the most faithful of friends His
heart was full of tenderness for the poor, and for the oppressed, and for the
afflicted. It was full, too, of gentle warmth and sunshine; and if there
appeared at times an occasional tinge of severity belonging to his character
It w;as not the natural temper of the man. The genuine impulses and
feelings of his heart were all impulses of kindness and of pity He knew
no selfishness. He despised everything that was mean and little He
could never stoop to any low trickery or artifice in his dealings with men.
He was unselfish and disinterested in everything that he undertook for
the cause of the people m every service he rendered either to relitrion or to
his country. _ And we have this to say in conclusion, that if ever Ihere was
a man who, m the whole history and character of his life, impressed unon
us the sense and the conviction that he had been raised up by God was,
chosen as His instrument to do an appointed w frk, and was streno-thcned
TUB FTJXERAL ORATION. 21
by His grace and supported by His -wisdom for the accomplishment of the
■work for which he had been chosen and appointed, that man was Arch-
bishop Hughes. He was, from the beginning until the end, clearly and
plainly an instrument in the hands of God. Such he felt himself; as such
ho lived ; as such he died. For us, beloved brethren, there remains now
only the last debt of affection and filial duty, which is to jn-ay for the
eternal repose of his soul. "We do not claim for him, we do not claim for
any man, no matter how exalted in the Church, exemption from human
frailty and human infirmity. lie parted from this world, as we have said,
tranquil, and prepared by all the Sacraments of the Church, by a life of
sincere and unostentatious piety, by a heart truly devoted to his God. But
still, if through human frailty there should yet remain some stain upon that
great soul to be expiated and washed away before it Will be so pure and
undefiled as to be worthy to enter the presence of God, oh, let us give to
_ Jiira, with all our earnest faith, all our heartfelt suffrages and prayers. For
our faith teaches, a;nd it is our beautiful and consoling belief, that though
parted in the body, our spirits are still united, and that we may still love
him, may still pray for him, aye, even perhaps be able to aid him by our
poor, but humble and earnest prayer. You, my brother prelates of the
Church of God, will especially pray for him; we who have toiled and
labored by his side — we who knew him well, who were so often assisted by
his counsels and aided by his wisdom, let us pi-ay for him. And you
faithful and venerable pastors and clergy of the Archdiocese, upon many
of whom' he has laid his venerable hands, to whom you have so long looked
to as }'our comfort and your pride, do you pray for him. And you holy
virgins of the Church, spouses of Jesus Christ, dp you pray for him. And
you little ones, fatherless and motherless, orphans in the Church, he was
your loving parent and generous benefactor ; pray for him. Catholics,
one and all, rich and poor, high. and low, of every rank and every condition,,
you o\YC him a debt of gratitude you never can repay; at least, oh pray
for him. JRequlem mtermim' dana eis Domine. Mb luxperpetua luceit eis.
Eternal rest give to him, oh Lord, and let perjaetual light shine on him. In
a moment more you will bid adieu to what stMl remain's of him'iiere. In a
moment' more,. with his mitre on his head, clothed in'the insignia of his
high office, he will go, as it were, in solemn procession, bidding you all a
last adieu — go to take his place with the prelates who went before him, and
who, beneath the vaults of this venerable Cathedral, now sleep the sleep of
peace. He will go, and the chants and prayers of the Church will surround
him ; and as the tones of that solemn' dirge and of those touching prayers
resound beneath these vaults, we still will fancy we hear in sad, responsive
tones, commingling with them, and lingering still behind after them : " I
have fought agood. fight ; I have run my course ; I have kept the faith ; I
now go to receive my crown."
Immediately after the discourse had been delivered the solemn ceremony
of the Absolution' commenced. This was performed with all the impres-
sive and sacred formalities the ceremony allows : .The Bishops making a
circuit around the catafalque, three times, sprinkling. Holy Wati3r., After
these ceremonies were gone tlirough with, the undertakers then aijproaehed
the catafalque, and placed all the floral wreaths and roses in the, coffin.
Six clergymen then placed the coflin on their shouldeijs, and,, while the
clergymen and choir chanted a solemn dirge, the remains were conveyed
in mournful procession through the Church, while the entire congregation
stood garing earnestly, for the last time, at the !face of the Archbishop,
which appeared distinctly above the head of the coffin, calm and peaceful
in the eternal sleep of death. The scene was such as has never been wit-
nessed in this city before. There was a sadness and a quiet solemnity in
22 OBSEQUIES OF AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
it that struck the vast congregation with sorrow and awe. The feelings
of all were strung to the highest pitch, and many a sob and subdued groan
was heard in the midst of the solemn stillness. The procession moved
out of the Cathedral to the vault in which repose the remains of Bishop
Dubois, Bishop Connolly, and others of the clergy. After depositing the
body in its appropriate place, the procession re-entered the Church, the
low, solemn tones of the De profundis swelling up through the aisles as it
passed along. The remains of the deceased Archbishop, however, will
not rest permaijently in their present place. It is intended to have a
magnificent tomb for them erected in the new Cathedral, as soon as it is
finished,
ACTION OF ST. PATEICK'S TRUSTEES, THE COURTS, AND THE
COMMON COUNCIL.
A special meeting of the Board was held on the evening of the 4th
Jan. —present, Messrs. John Kelly, O'Connor, O'Donnell, H. Kelly, McKin-
ley, Lynch, Hegan, Dolin, and Carolin. On motion, Mr. John Kelly was
called to the chair, and Mr. Carolin acted as Secretary. The Chairman
stated that the meeting had been called for the purpose of taking action
in reference to the demise of the late Most Reverend Archbishop Hughes.
Thereupon, on motion, the following gentlemen were appointed to draw up
resolutions expressive of the feelings of the Board, and publish the same
in such newspapers as they may select. Thereupon Messrs. O'Connor and
Carolin were appointed, and to which committee the chairman was added.
It was then resolved that the Board form themselves into a Committee of
Arrangements for the funeral services on Thursday, 7th inst., and that such
Committee meet in the session-room of the Board on Thursday, 7th inst.,
at eight o'clock A. m. The following resolutions were also adopted :
Resolved, That in the death of the Most Reverend John Hughes, D. D., Arch-
bishop of New York, the Roman CathoUc Church laments the loss of an illustrious
prelate whose life was devoted to the prorrlulgation of her faith, and who by his
labors extended the benign influence of her sacred teachings.
Resolved, That with grateful recognition we record that, from the first moment
of his entering upon the duties of his mission in this diocese until the close of his
mortal career, he upheld with unfaltering arm the banner of our Holy Church,
and zealously promoted the welfare of those confided to his spiritual care and
protection. The numerous churches, colleges, seminaries of learning and religious
orders, the hospitals and asylums called into existence by his industry and energ)',
will long remain to perpetuate the memory of his religious zeal and the benevo-
lence of his heart.
Resolved, That we recall with pride the many instances in which our Most Rev-
erend Archbishop stood forth as the champion of our Faith, of Education, and
Civil and Religious Liberty ; illustrating in his career the virtues of a Pastor
attached to his flock, and the ability of a Statesman anxious for the welfare of his
country. Exiled in early life from the land of his birth, he deeply sympathized
with her sufferings and sorrow, his- eloquent and powerful voice being always
raised in advocacy of her rights and in indignation against her wrongs. The
land of his adoption will cherish the remembrance of his disinterested patriotism
and devotion to her interests and honor.
Resolved, That while we bow in humility to the dispensation of the Almighty,
who has taken from us our beloved Pastor, we are consoled by the reflectioiTthat
the memory of his virtues and labors will endure to animate those who are to
follow him in the great mission of charity, education, and of our holy reho-ion,
with his spirit of devotion to the advancement of our holy faith and the greater
glory of God.
All the Courts in session in this city adjourned from Wednesday to
EESOLUTICWfS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL, ETC. 25
Friday, out of respect to the illustrious dead, and in order tliat the
judges, lawyers, and jurors might be able to attend the funeral ceremonies
ou Thursday. Nearly all our city judges, in-espective of religion, attended
the obsequies.
On Monday, January 4th, Mayor Gunther sent in a message to both
Boards of the City Government announcing the death of Archbishop
Hughes, and recommending that some action be taken in refererice to it.
Accordingly, a special meeting of the Aldermen and Councilmen took
place on Wednesday evening, January 6th, when preamble and resolutions
were read and adopted. It was resolved in the Board of Councilmen :
That, la the death of John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, the country is
called upon to mourn the loss of a conservative, influential, and enlightened
citizen ; the City of New York has lost a great and good man ; the numerous,
intelligent and conservative denomination of Christians, of which he was the
acknowledged head in this country, has lost a wise, zealous, and indefatigable
advocate and guide ; the religion of which he was such a conscientious and devoted
disciple has lost an able and powerful advocate, and in its peculiar tenfets, a
learned expounder.
Resolved, That out of respect for the memory of the deceased prelate, and in
consideration of his private virtues and public services, this Common Council
will attend his funeral in a body, with their staffs of office draped in- mourning ;
that they will cause the flags to be displayed at half mast on the City HaU and
the other public buildings on the day set apart for the funeral rites and cere-
monies ; that the public buildings and offices of the Corporation be closed on
that day, and that a special committee of five members from each Board be
appointed to make the necessary arrangements for attending the obsequies.
It was also resolved that a copy of the preamble and resolutions be
engrossed and sent to Father Starrs. The same resolutions were adopted
by the Board of Aldermen, and both 'attended the obsequies, accompanied
by the Mayor.
The Trustees of the Cathedral extended invitations to the following to
attend the obsequies : Sisters of Eeligious Orders ; President of the
United States and Cabinet ; Governor of the State of New York and
Staff; Foreign Dignitaries ; Members of Judiciary ; Members of the Legis-
lature ; Mayor and Officers of the Common Council ; B^rd of Supervis-
ors ; Board of Education ; Heads of Departments ; Commissioners of
Charities and Correction ; Dissenting Clergymen ; Gen. John A. Dix and
Staff; Gen. Hays and Staff; Army and Navy Officers ; Delegations from
Medical Societies ; Representatives of Jesuit Colleges ; Delegation of St
Vincent de Paul Society ; Distinguished Catholics ; Distinguished Protest-
ants ; Strangers from abroad. All of the above persons invited did not
attend. Neither the President and Cabinet, nor the Governor of New
York were present, as we presume their respective duties would not allow
them to be absent. The State Legislature at Albany passed resolutions in
regard to the death of the Archbishop. They were passed, after some
opposition from a Mr. Douglass, of Oneida County, by a vote of 76 yeas
to 14 nays. The Commissioners of " Public Charities and Correction"
held a meeting on the 7th Jan., and passed resolutions of regret at the
death of the iirchbishop, and voted to attend the obsequies in a body.
24 OBSEQUIES OF AECHBISHOP HUGipES.
LETTERS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, SEC-
RETARY SEWARD, AND GOVERNOR SEYMOUR ON THE DEATH
OF THE ARCHBISHOP.
The following letters were received in reply to invitations to attend the
obsequies of the Most Reverend Archbishup :
From the President.
Dbpaiitmbnt of State, "Washington, Jan. 13, 1864.
Venj jRei\ Wm. Starrs, Administrator of the Diocese of Neio TorJc :
Very Rev. and Dear Sir,— The President of the United States has
put into my hands the invitation to the funeral obsequies of the late Arch-
bishop Hughes, with which he was favored by you. While it was impossi-
ble for him to accept the invitation, he has, nevertheless, earnestly desired
to find some practicable mode of manifesting the , sorrow with which he
received intelligence of that distinguished Prelate^s demise, and his sym-
pathy with his countrymen, and with the religious communion over which
the deceased presided, in their great bereavement. I have, therefore, on
his behalf, to request that you will make known in such manner as will
seem to you most appropriate, that having formed the Archbishop's
acquaintance in the earliest days of our country's present troubles, his
counsel and advice were gladly sought and continually received by the
' Grovernment on those jooints which his position enabled him better than
others to consider. At a conjuncture of deep interest to the country, the
Archbishop, associated with others, went abroad and did the nation a
service there, with all the loyalty, iidelity, and practical wisdom which,
'oa so many other occasions, illustrated his great ability for administration.
Humbly hoping that the loss which the Church and the State have sus-
tained in the removal of the Head of your Arch diocese, may, through the
blessing of God, be repaired, so that what has been an unspeakable gain
to him may not be a permanent cause of sorrow to them,
I have the honor to be, respectfully, your obedient servant,
WM. H. SEWARD.
From Hon. Wm. H. Seward.
Washington, January 5, 1864.
V^ry Uev. Wm. Starrs, Administrator of the Diocese of New Yorh :
Vert Rev. and Dear Sir, — I regret more deeply than I can eSpress
that indispensable official engagements will deprive me of the sad satisfac-
tion of attending the obsequies of the late Archbishop, and thus manifest-
ing, in the only way now possible, the respect and affection which I have..
BO long cherished towards him as a faithful friend, a pious prelate, a loyal,
patriot, a great and a good man.
W. H. SEWARD. . '
From lion. Horatio Seymour, Oovei~nor of the State of New Yorh:
State av New York, Executive Department, )
Albany, January 5, 1864. j
Very Rev. Wm. Starrs, Administrator of the Diocese of New York :
Vert Rav. Dear Sift, — I have received youi- announcement of the
death of Archbishop Hughes, and your invitation to attend his funeraL
MONTH S MIJSTD CEEElIOSriKS. 25
As the Legislatni-G has just assembled, it is not possible for mo to leave
the capital of the State. I regret it is not in my power to show, by my
attend.inoe, my respeet for the memory of one of the marked men of the
couutiy. The life-long labors of the late Archbishop ^vill tell for a long
period upon the literature, the religion, and the charitable institutions of
our land. In a few years the City of New York will be adorned Ijy a
magniticent cathedral, the broad foundations of which were hu.: under his
supervision and care. So, too, in the, future, will the interests of learning,
religion, and charity be built upon the ground-works which he has estab-
lished <luring his long and laborious life. The progress of events and the,
growth of our counti-y will not throw his memory into the shade, but they
will develop and make more clear his influence upon the social condition
of our people.
Truly yours, HORATIO SEYMOUR.
THE MONTH'S MIND OF ARCHBISHOP HUG-HES-
SERMON OF BISHOP LOUGHLIN.
The solemn service api^ointed by the Catholic Church for the thirtieth
day after burial, was on Wednesday, the 3d February, celebrated with
the customary form and ceremony in St. Patrick's Cathedral, for the happy
repose of Archbishop Hughes. The Church was tastefully and artistically,
draped in mourning, as on the occasion of the Obsequies, and the stately
catafalque which graced the grand aisle, in front of the altar, was a model
of fine taste. On its centre was placed a large funeral urn surmounted by a
cross, and over it was suspended the purple stole of the illustrious prelate,
whose mitre stood on the foot of the mimic coffin, sad mementoes of the
dead. . There was one Archbishop and six Bishops present.
The following are the names of the Bishops and Clergy present, so far as
could be ascertained at the tima: Most Rev. Archbishop Connolly, of
Halifax, N. S. ; Bishops Bayley, Newark ; Timon, Buffalo ; Loughlin,
Brooklyn ; Domenec, Pittsburg ; Farrell, Hamilton, 0. "W. ; Lynch, To-
ronto, 0. W. ; Very Rev. Father Starrs, V. Gr., Administrator; Rev. Messrs.
Baker, Farrell, Deshon, W. Quinn, Brennan, McNulty, Moylan, S. J. ; Loy-
zance, S. J., Driscol, S. J., "Walworth, O'Oallahan, Conron, Mooney, Breen,
Clowrey, McKenna, McLoughlin, Barry, Boyce, Nelligan, D. D., McMa-
hon,. Lynch, McClellan, McEvoy, Orsenigo, Heoker, McCarthy, Briady,
Treanor, Mignault, S. J., Ourran, Brennan, Madden, Shanahan, Brophy,
Daly, Reardon, Quinn, John Everet, Feral, Woo(jls, MuUedy, S. J., Farrelly,
O'Toole, Hassan, Lewis, Nobriga, Slevin, of the Diocese of New York.
There were also a large number of Priests from the neighboring Dioceses ;
among the rest, Very Rev. Father Morau, V. Q-., Newark, N. J. ; Rev. Messrs.
Doane, Newark, N. 3. \ Madden, Madison, N. J. ; McKay, Orange, N. J. ;
Cauvin, Hoboken, N. J. ; McNulty, Patersou, N. J. ; Very Rev. Mr. Turner,
V. G-. ; Rev. Messrs. McDonnell, McKenna, Cassidy, Gleeson, Keegan, Brady,
McGorrisk, Maguire, Bohan, Pise, D. D, Freel, Brooklyn, N. Y. ; Phelan
Astoria, N. Y. ;, Parley, Jamaica, N. Y. ; O'Brien, New Haven, Ct. ;> Hart, New
Haven, Ct., Smyth, Norwalk, Ct. ; DaBruyker, Williamantic, Ct. ; Walsh, Mer-
iden, Ct. ; Kelly, Norwich, Ct.; Lambe, Providence, R. I. ; Cooney, Providence,
R. L; Very Rev. J. J. Williams, V. G., Boston, Mass. ; Rev. Messrs. Linden,
Boston, Mass. ; McPhillips, Taunton, Mass. ; Very Rev. M. O'Brien, V. G.,
Rochester, N. Y. ; Rev. Messrs.- Mulholland, Lookport, N. Y. ; MoMulIin,
Suspension Bridge, N. Y. ; McGowan, Seneca Falls, N. Y. ; Magliana,
26 SEEMON OP BISHOP LOTJGHLIN.
O. S. r., Alleghany, N. Y. ; Bevnolds, Pittsburg, Pa. ; J. McCloskey, V. P.,
Mt. St. Mary's College, Emmilsburg, and Conway, P. P., Headford, Ireland.
Mass was celebrated by Archbishop Connolly, assisted by Very Rev. Mr.
Starrs, V. Q., Administrator ^ro tern, of the Archdiocese; Rev. Mr. Ma^ire
of the Cathedral officiated as Deacon, and Rev. Dr. McSweeney as Sub-
deacon; Rev. F. McNeirny, Master of Ceremonies, assisted by Rev. Mr. Far-
rell. The sermon, preached by the Bishop of Brooklyn, is given in full
below.
SERMON OP BISHOP LOUaHLIN.
Remember yoar Prelates who have spoken the Word of God to you ; whose faith
follow, considering the end of their conversation. — Heb. xiii. 7.
ToTj are assembled here to-day, beloved brethren, to perform a work
■which your religion recommends — ^that is, to unite in offering the Holy
Sacrifice and fervent prayer for the repose of the soul of our lamented Arch-
bishop. You have come, also, it may be, to hear from this place a suitable
exposition of his merits which may be calculated to increase your, respect,
admiration and affection for him, or to. confirm in you those sentiments
which have long since had a place in your hearts. Already most eloquent
words of eulogy have been addressed to you. Already you have heard on
all sides, in public and in private, the learned and the unlearned; the states-
man, the lawyer, the orator, the poet, those who are not members of the
.Catholic Church as well as those who are, proclaim, with one accord, their
respect for the illustrious departed. On the day of his obsequies you saw
within this sacred edifice, municipal and various other representations and
delegations, manifesting their grief for the loss sustained by the whole
community, while sympathetic thousands were without, unable to enter.
The grahd solemnity of that day, and the manifestation of feeling which
the sad event by which it was marked called forth, will not be soon for-
gotten. The remembrance of him whose remains were then before us wiK
be ever cherished with respect and affection by all of us. After all this,
can any word I might utter extend the boundaries of his fame, or increase
your respect and affection for him ? I apprehend that any effort on my
part to accomplish this might be fruitless, on account of my inability, in
the limited time allowed me for the purpose, and because, even if I had
more time, I could not satisfy the demands of justice, or reach the point to
which your expectations have been raised. Nevertheless, as it is written
by the Apostle : " Remember your Prelates who have spoken the Word of
God to you ; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,"
I venture to speak of one of whom it is difficult to speak, and yet concern-
ing whom it is difficult to be silent.
When we speak of the Most Rev. Dr. Hughes, late Archbishop of New York,
we speak of a man whom Divine Providence gifted with very great, I might
say with extraordinary powers of mind, who entertained in his heart sentiments
which do honor to humanity, who ha,d a robust, vigorous physical constitution,
all of which would have secured for him distinguished pre-eminence in any posi-
tion or sphere in life. If we speak of him as a citizen, I may say that if ever the
lamp of patriotism burned in the heart of man, it did in his. He loved, and
fondly, too, the land of his nativity, but the intolerance there experienced
caused him to leave it for " another country in which he believed the rights
and privileges of citizens rendered all men equal." The duties which devolved
upon him, and which he understood so well, in this land of his adoption, he
discharged with unswerving fidelity. To use his own language, " His feelings,
his habits, his thoughts, had been so much identified with all that is American,
month's mind ceremonies. 27
that he had almost forgotten he was a foreigner." So long ahiiost as the lamp
of life itself continued to burn, so did that also of the love of his country, and
for it he was willing to make every sacrifice compatible with his high and holy
vocation. He was entitled to our respect and admiration as a man and as a
citizen, and we are called upon to revere his memory now that he is no more.
But it is in the sacred and exalted character of priest and prelate, of anointed
of the LoVd, of sentinel on the watchtower of Israel, of a chief of the hosts
of the Lord, of shepherd in the fold of Christ, that we consider and commemo-
rate him more especially. It was after his ordination that "his public life
commenced. Not much time had elapsed after that event before he felt him-
self called upon to repel the unjust assaults which bigotry made upon his religion,
and which were calculated to bring odium on it and its professors. Conscious
of the possession of the powers with which he had been gifted, and at the same
time of the truth and holiness of the cause he undertook to defend, he advanced
as a giant, and with his wonderful intellectual ability he detected and exposed
before the light of revelation and reason the errors and the bad logic of his
opponents, and having scattered the mists of ignorance and prejudice, the truth
shone forth in all its majesty and splendor, and the Catholic public gloried in
him as their great champion. As a priejit he acquired great distinction, which,
as it was acquired in the defence of his religion, redounded also to the honor
of that religion and of the Catholic name.
In the cqurse of a few years he was called upon to assume^reater re-
sponsibilities. A heavier burden was to be borne by him. He did not
seek those responsibilities, nor did he ask to have that burden placed upon
his shoulders. Yet when he was satisfied that it was the will of his Divine
Master that he should bear it, he bowed in submission— he did not refuse
the labor. Confiding in Him whose name is Almighty, from the eminence
to which he had been raised, at the proper time, he surveyed the fold for
which he became responsible, made himself acquainted with its condition,
to give direction, apply the corrective, or supply the want, according to
the circumstances. He entered on the discharge of the duties of the Epis-
copate with astonishing ability and vigor. With eye fixed on the great
palladium of civil and religious liberty — on the great principle of the
American government, he asserts for the young and for the old of his flock
the rights of conscience. Again, you find him engaged in removing with
masterly dexterity the difficulties that obstructed the free observance of
ecclesiastical discipline. At another time you see him contemplating
the threatening storm of human passion, and soon, as if it awaited his
order, it is hushed into inoffensive stillness. Should his adversary present
himself behind a mask, he tears it off, and with a rod dipped in a mix-
ture of logic, ridicule and sarcasm, he sends him back in confusion to the
obscurity frolm which he had emerged.
Besides the great tact and prudence for which he was remarkable, he
was most courageous — ^never daunted, never dismayed — a stranger to fear.
He was sometimes apparently severe, yet always kind, benevolent, charita-
ble. In all his labors, and trials, and contests, he found consolation in the
truth and holiness of his religion, in the rectitude of his conduct ; "in all
my public life in New York," he writes, "I have done no action, uttered
no sentiment unworthy of a Christian Bishop and an American citizen ;"
and also in the reciprocation of fidelity on the part of his devoted flock, so
that he might declare, as he did on the occasion of the laying of the corner-
stone of the new Cathedral, to the assembled thousands, '' You have never
failed me," reminding us of what the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians :
" We are your glory, as you also are ours." What shall I say of the emo-
tions of pleasure experienced by the members of this congregation as he
was seen proceeding from the sacristy or episcopal throne towards this
28 SERMON OTT BISHOP LOUGHLIJT. ,
plaop ? We know how deliglited all were to hear the soimii of that voice, '
now, alas ! hushed to stillness, to see that penetrating eye, now closed and
motionless, and that gesture, which seemed to accord so naturally in vigor
and force with the language employed in elucidating doi;trine or enforcing
the observance of moral precept. But why should I continue to repeat
what you have so often heard, or endeavor to bring before your view what
you have so often seen ? Is it only for the purpose of exciting anew your
respect and your affection for him ? While I would say it is not unlawful,
but rather 'commendable, to entertain these sentiments, should wo not also
• — yea, and above all — give glory to Him who was pleased to enrich him so
munificicntly ? Who bestowed on him the gift of faith ? Who gave him
fortitude and constancy in defence of that faith J Who gave him prudence
and other endowments for which he was so distinguished ? To the Giver
of every good and perfect gift, to the Father of Lights, to the Author and
Knisher of our faith, to the Spirit of Wisdom and Fortitude, be honor
and glory, benediction and praise, for all the graces and blessings be-
stowed upon him, and, through his ministry, upon ua. Thus, beloved
brethren, does the remembrance of the great Prelate excite to praise and
glorify God, nor should it be without its salutary influence" on our lives.
This was the thought of the Apostle when he admonished the Hebrews to
follow the faith of their Prelates.
That God has made a revelation to man, we doubt not. It is also certain
that it was his will that Ho should- be glorified by man's knowledge and ac-
ceptance of it. Man should then have a knowledge of it, should accept it, and
be guided by it. Has God made any arrangement for this purpose ? Most
certainly. It is made known to us by the Evangehst as a fact which existed.
Like all the stupendous works of the Almighty, it seem.s very simple. The
Son of God chose Apostles, and to them He gave the words which He had
received from his Father, and He commissioned them to preach them to the
nations of the earth, pledging his word to them that He would be with them
till the end of the world ; declaring to them, moreover, that whoever heard them
heard Him ! The work was to be continued, and the order in which it was to
be carried on was arranged by infinite wisdom. It was by a living, teaching
ministry. So the Apostles understood it. We read that St Paul directed
Timothy to commend to faithful men who shall be tit to teach others also the
things which he had heard from him. He left Titus at Crete for the express
purpose of ordaining others, that thus the ministry might be perpetuated. He
tells the Hebrews to obey their prelates and to be subject to them, for they
watch as being to render an account of their souls, and again, to follow their
faith. ■ The doctrines of faith which they believed and taught were believed
and taught by the prelates of the Church everywhere, in every nation. Thus,
in our 'day, we may repeat the words of the Apostle, " Remember your Pre-
lates who have spoken the Word of God to you, whose faith follow." It is the
faith of the Catholic Church, the faith once delivered to the saints..
This is the faith he held and preached. Follow that fdth and you will
be good members of society, good citizens, good Christians. To it you
must apply for a correctknowledge of all your duties. By means of it you
can see things as God wills you should see them here below, and viewing
the world and all ^that is in it by the aid of its light, you will see its vanity ;
you will learn that true happiness is not found apart from God; jou learn
the value of an immortal soul. The'great truths of Faith lie preached to
you with great force and dignity, yet with great simplicity, for to the
learned and to the unlearned, to the wise and to the unwise, he was a
debtor. He never forgot that he was 'a' bishop, and that he should take
heed to himself and to the whole flock over which he had been placed.
Great were his gifts, great his dignity, 'great his responsibility. He is ad-
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 29
monislied lliat the time when he shall liavo to rciidiir an aoftount of his
(tewardship is at hand, and that he should prepare for it. He received the
Last Sacraments. Though it was, and ever -wi:! be, a great consolation to
me and to you to know that he had the full and unimpared use of his senses
and faculties at the time, it was difficult to look at that great man, that
champion, that hero preparing to leave the scone of liis labors, to leave those
who were devoted to him. After he had received the Holy Viaticum and
the Sacrament of Extreme Unction he did not fail to express, in his own
peculiar, emphatic manner, the happiness he experienced. Soon after my
consecration I had occasion to go to his room. Having attended to the
business for which I went, and about to leave, he looked at me and said :
" Never forget that you are a Bishop."
Now, in conclusion, I transmit to you, beloved brethren, the affectionate
admonition,; never forget that you are Catholics. Great is the digaity of
the Archbishop, of the Bishop, of the Priest, of the Catholic, and great the
responsibility. One of the great thoughts of his great mind, the desire of
his heart, was that his children in the Faith should not be socially or
ci\'illy inferior to their fellow-citizens. He knew to what dignity their
Faith raised them. He knew they had a correct understanding of their
moral obligations, and the duty of defending their civil and their social
rights he never lost sight of. Remember your Prelate who has spoken to
you the Word of God. Follow the great principles of his and your Faith.
Kemembcr him in your prayers, so that, so far as may depend on you, you
may be instrumental in hastening, if it has not already taken place, his ad-
mission into the joy of his Lord. Take heed to yourselves. Forget not
your dignity, so tlaat when your day come, or rather, if you will, v/hen the
night cometh when you can no longer labor, you may pass from this world
of darkness to the enjoyment of Him who dwelleth in the midst of light
inaccessible.
After the Sermon was concluded, the last solemn rites were performed by
Archbishop Connolly, attended by Deacon and Sub-Deacon. Thus ended
the last public ceremony over the remains of a great and good man. lie-
gziiescat in pace.
BISHOP HUGHES' GREAT SERMON
ON THE EMANCIPATION OF IRISH CATHOLICS.
Freachedin the Church of St. Augusiine, Philadelphia, May Zisi, 1829.
[This splendid sermon was delivered by the late Archbishop Hughes in the Church
of St. Auffustine, in Philadelphia, on the 31st of May, 1829, at a solemn religious
'thanksgiving to Almighty God for the emancipation of the Catholics of Great Britain
and Ireland, just achieved through the efforts of Daniel O'Cnnnell. The sermon was
dedicated to him by the author, who was then only pastor of St. Joseph's Church.]
LordThouhast blessedThy land : Thou hast^turned away the captivity of Jacob . . .
.... Mercy and truth have met each other : Justice and peace have kissed.
Truth is sprung out of the earth ; and Justice hath looked down from heaven.
I'SALJi lixxiv.
It is the privilege of man, my brethren, to sympathize in sorrows that
•are not his own, as well as to rejoice in the blessings which make others
happy, although they leave his own individual condition unchanged and un-
so AECHBISHOP HUGHES
affected. This peculiarly amiable feature has heen impressed on the human
character by the plasmatic hand of Almighty God, in order, no doubt, to
remind his children, by the community of their affections, that however
separated by distance of time or place, they are brethren notwithstanamg,
deriving their origin from a common Father, by whom they were createa tor
a common end. Otherwise, the sympathetic susceptibilities of the human
breast arc inexplicable. There is no other fountain to which we can trace
the current of those tears that bedew the pages of romance, when they pic-
ture scenes of distress which might heme existed, but which in fact never rfjrf
exist, save in the author's imagination and the reader's sensibility. If, then,
by the spontaneous dictate of generous nature, we can enter thus largely
into the fortunes and feelings of one individual, how could we stand unmoved
when we behold entire millions of our species and our brethren, after whole
ages of sorrow, rejoicing at length in the commencement of a new-born des-
tiny, and we trust a happier era. It was but yesterday you saw the hope
of those millions suspended from the balance of apparent chance, and with
what anxious solicitude did you watch every tremulous motion of the beam,
whilst prejudice, folly and oppression were in one scale, opposed to reason,
truth and justice in the other, and it yet remained doubtful which side would
ultimately preponderate ! The issue has been auspicious : it has been made
known to you and to the world ; and other millions, perfectly disinterested,
except by the sympathies of universal nature, are now rejoicing in the event.
Such is the benevolence of philanthropy.
But this feeling, for the very reason that it is capable of being extended,
so as to embrace all mankind of every nation and of every clime, becomes
stronger and wanner, like the concentrated rays of the sun, when circum-
stances confine it within a narrower sphere. "What was philanthropy, when
it knew no limits, requires to be expressed by some more ardent epithet,
when it is circumscribed by the boundaries of our native country; and lan-
guage presents a word of magic influence — patriotism. Here, then, is an-
other principle of hunian nature that operates on so many bosoms in the vast
assembly that surround me. There is in the heart of every man that which
interestshim — the land of his nativity ; and until that heart cease to beat, no
distance either of time or of place will be able to extinguish the sensation.
He may banish himself from his country — his judgment may give a. decided
preference to any other — his reason may be at variance with his feelings —
absence and age, and reason and philosophy may all conspire against the
rebel affection of his bosom, but they will not be able to subdue it. The
home of his fathers and of his childhood, the scenes and companions of his
youth, even the first landscape, however rude, with which his eyes became
familiar — all these things break in upon his recollection in after years, with,
that luxury of mingled feelings which I cannot describe, because they will
not submit to be analyzed, but which every exile from his country has expe-
rienced, and can therefore appreciate. These reminiscences are sometimea
sad, and yet they charm ; they are melancholy, and still they enchant : but
whatever they are, they maintain their dominion over the human breast;
and I know one heart that would not like to be insensible to their influence,
even if the tiling were possible.
Still, my'brethren, they are common to the Jew, the Christian, and the
idolater : to the barbarian as well as to the Greek. They belong to the
order of mere human virtues, until they are touched and hallowed, like the
prophet's lips, by some living embers from the altar of religion. Thus,
whilst we indulge in feelings of philanthropy and of patriotism, as men, we
must not be unmindful that as believers we should refer to God the glory
of the achievement in which we all rejoice. It is for this especial reason
that we give expression to our gratitude in the act of solemn and religious
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 31
thanksgiving, and thus proclaim our belief, that the aflfaira cf this -world are
not abandoned to capricious chance — that they are not decided by sullen
destiny — but that God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe, without seem-
ing to dispute the wisdom of earthly calculations, disposes them neverthe-
less in measure and in weight according to a superior judgment, too sub-
lime for the scrutiny of man, too infinite for the comprehension of created
intellect.
So that, on whatsoever side we consider the subject, we find the occasion
to be in accordance with the best and most universal feelings of our nature,
and with the soundest dictates of reason and of religion. It 'is an occasion
of legitimate rejoicing in every sense : when the apple of discord, which has
been the cause of jo much oppression, injustice, and bloodshed in unhappy
Ireland, has been^at length destroyed, and the axe effectually applied to
the root of the tree that produced it — when those inequalities in the law
which divided the nation so long, operating as an almost irresistible incen- ,
tive to the worst passions of authority, are blotted out for ever — when we
may hope that hereafter heaven will be no more outraged by the crimes of
the oppressor; that humanity will no longer be compelled to weep over
the sufferings of the oppressed — when, in fine, the kindred virtues have
been permitted to meet again, and justice and peace have actually kissed,
in token of eternal amity.
Such are the prominent features of the moral triumph which I have this
day to proclaim ; and my only regret is, that it has not found a herald more
competent to do it justice. When I refiect, however, that the intense feel-
ings which surround me are interested chiefly in the matter of my subject,
I have reason to hope they will extend a generous portion of indulgence to
the manner in which it may be presented. This is the cheeiing considera-
tion that sustains me, when I would otlierwise shrink from the arduous un-
dertaking.
The histories of nations, my brethren, like those of individuals, chequered
as both are by the vicissitudes to which human things are liable, become a
book of moral and religious instruction when studied by the light of Chris-
tian faith: — whilst at the same time they furnish that experience from
which philosophy may extract lessons of practical wisdom ; and statesmen
derive political knowledge, which they can employ for the promotion or
the destruction of social happiness. And there is not in the world, per-
haps, a country whose history may be studied under a greater variety of
aspects, than that which is this day the subject of our consideration. The
native historians of Ireland trace the lineal descent of her people to a very
distinguished origin, and to an extremely remote period of antiquity.
They claim also, even for their pagan ancestors, a degree of superiority in
national policy, and in mental improvement, which distinguished them in
those ages, as much as the Mexicans were distinguished from the other na-
tions of this hemisphere at the epoch of the Spanish invasion. _ Other
writers, however, have drawn their pen across the labor of the Irish anti-
quarians, and without taking the pains to investigate, have pronounced the
whole narrative to be fabulous. If national credulity has arrogated too
much, it is equally certain that those, who with national antipathies have-
undertaken to correct the mistake, have been uncandid in refusing to con-
cede what ought not to be withheld. For, without losing ourselves in the
mists of antiquity, but beginning at the period when history cast away the
drapery of fiction, with which, it is said, that poetry had invested her, we
are met by tangible and uncontroverted facts, which prove that however
the pretensions to superiority may have been over-rated, they are not alto-
gether without foundation.
Jt was in the fifth century of our era, when Christianity, having already
32 AHCHBISHOP HUGHES
scattered lier divine illuminations extensively over tlie globe, landed at
length on the shores of Ireland, and planted the cross— at once the ep blem
of her doctrine and the evidence of her conquest — where the Roman eagle
never floated. In what situation did she find the country ? Governed by
a monarch who enjoyed the sceptre by the right of election, whose privileges
were limited and defined ; with representative parliamentary assemblies,
for the enactment of wise laws ; with three distinct classes in the state, for
the purposes of subordination ; with the use of letters and literary estab-
lishments ; with institutions separate and apart for the study of music,
heraldry, philosophy, and medicine ! This is not the government of a rude
and savage people— these are not the institutions of barbarism, nor the oc-
cupation of barbarians. Greece would not have been ashamed of them at
any time ; and in that age history sought for them in vain beyond the
limits of the Roman empire, except in Ireland,
But, again, contrast the admission which Christianity obtained in Ireland,
with the cruel opposition which it had to encounter in other countries. .
When we examine the means and manner of the world's conversion, we find
that the first heralds of eternal life' were generally immolated in almost
every country to the expiring deities of the place ; and that the tree of di-
vine faith was not permitted to. take root in the soil, until after it had been
profusely watered with the blood of those who were commissioned to plant
it. In Ireland, however, this was not the case. The great apostle of that
nation was permitted to labor undisturbed in his holy vocation for thirty
successive years, exhibiting the meek religion of Jesus Christ in the power
of its own celestial evidence — and because the mind of Ireland was im-
proved and competent to judge it by its evidence, only thirty years was
]iecessary to establish that doctrine, which, a proscription and a persecution
of nearly three hundred have not been able to root out. Greece and Italy
were enlightened, and yet they endeavored to extinguish the infant religion
of Christ in its cradle ; but their hearts were depraved, and the Holy Scrip-
tures assign the universal motive of men, who "love darkness rather than
light." The reasoning of Ireland, compared with theirs, was the reasoning
of Gamaliel in the council of the Pharisees. But in all the other countries
civilization followed with tardy pace in the footsteps of Christianity ; in
Ireland it had gone before. Elsewhere, the seed of the divine word was
sown on the rocks of barbarism, or scattered amid the brambles of blind,
bigoted, and cruel superstition — here, the rock had been broken, the bram-
bles had been cleared away, and Christianity found a soil prepared ; for I
defy historical scepticism, with all its easy ingenuity, to account for its un-
obstructed promulgation, and rapid increase on any other human hypo-
thesis.
But, together with the religion of Jesus Christ, Ireland received the
knowledge of Roman letters, and of classic literature ; and during the sub-
sequent ages, when the torch of science was on the verge of extinction
throughout the rest of Europe, it blazed forth in Ireland with a lustre which
attracted at once the notice and the admiration of the world. And here
permit me to instance how hereditary and indeliable are the leading traits
of national character. One of the laws previous to its conversion, proves
that hospitality was universally exercised in that country from time im-
memorial. This law did not enjoin merely that the stranger should be
taken in when perchauGO he knocked at the door, nor that having entered
the domestic circles, his rights should be regarded as sacred. In other
countries this would have been much ; in Ireland it was unnecessary, and
would have been nothing. It was enjoined by public authority, and under
the forfeiture of penalty, that no family should remove from its established
residence without having given previous notice of its intention, lest t te
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 33
■wearied traveler, unapprised of the change, should call at the deserted
mansion, when overtaken by the darkness of the night, and there would be
no one to receive him to the rites of hospitality.
But it was during the period subsequent to the introduction of Christi-
anity, when the, charities of heaven's religion were engrafted on the stock
of native generosity, that Ireland established her prescriptive and undisput-
ed claim to that national character, which, through all the variety of her
fortunes, she has not to this day forfeited. Her seminaries of learning,
with which she abounded, were crowded with the votaries of knowledge
from every other country, and we are authorized on the testimony of a co-
temporaneous and a foreign writer, the venerable Bede, to state that those
strangers were received, supported, and educated in the Irish seminaries,
without remuneration or reward. Abroad, in Germany, Italy, and Prance,
she was regarded through the medium of her pious ecclesiastics, who went
forth as missionaries, imparting to others the blessings of religion which
heaven had bestowed upon themselves ; and judging of the country which
produced them, by their numbers, their talent, their zeal, but, above all,
by the unblemished sanctity of their lives, Ireland was designated in the
writings of the time, as the " Island of Saints." This is an appellation of
which she has the more reason to be proud, because it was not engraved
on her escutcheon by the hand of national vanity, but was the unsolicited
offering, the spontaneous tribute of foreign admiration. This is a title to
which, even in the depth of her political degradation, Ireland looked back
with a fond, but saddened recollection, because like the statues of illus-
trious ancestors in pagan Rome, it reminded her of the eminence from
which she had fallen, and the degeneracy of the children compared with
the sanctity of their fathers. But this is not the time to enlarge on that
topic.
Neither was it by their virtues alone that the preachers of Christianity
from Ireland, during those ages, were distinguished in other lands. One
of the writers of her history, Plowden, himself an Englishman, tells us that
Alfred the Great, and England's greatest king, was educated in Ireland ;
from whence, also, he brought professors for that Oxford college which the
other day voted against the religion of its founder, and the country of its
first professors. The biographer and historian of Charlemagne says, that
the colleges of Paris and Pavia were founded by Irish ecclesiastics. The
younger Scaliger informs us that in the time of Charlemagne, and for tivo
hundred years after, '■'fere omnei doeti" almost all the learned men of
France were from Ireland. And Doctor Johnson observes, Ireland is known
to have been once the seat of piety and of learning, and concludes by the
expression of his regret that more is not ascertained of the revolutions of
a people "so ancient," says he, "and once so illustrious." Such is the hon-
orable testimony borne to the character of that country before it became
the prey of ruthless invasion. But why should I have selected Johnson
and Scaliger from a host of others ? Because, my brethren, their evidence
bids defiance to the common objections made by historical skepticism, viz ;
ignorance, or partiality to the religion or the soil. Both were pre-eminent
in the science of lellea-lettres ; both were giants in literature; both were
foreigners ; both were Protestants.
Such was the march of Ireland on the literary theatre of the world be-
fore she was inundated by the waters of oppression, from which she is now
emerging. She went forth scattering the treasures of her own enlightened
intellect, pouring her own oil into the famished lamp of science wherever
she, passed; or lighting it up where it had never blazed before. Such was
her zeal to plant with generous hand in the bosom of other nations, those
seeds of religion and of virtue which had produced the harvest of holinesa
3
34 AECHBISHOP HUGHES
in her own. To tlie man who is skilled in the philosophy of believing only
what he sees or comprehends, the idea may appear superstitious ; but to me
it seems in accordance with the certain- though mysterious economy of Di-
vine Providence, that during this illustrious period of her pre-emjncnce m
science and in piety, Ireland was guided by some spirit of prophetic benev-
olence from above, that gave her a glimpse of her own future situntion,
and breathed in her soul the counsel of eternal wisdom, to labor while the
day is, for the night cometh when no man can work. When we behold her
standing on her own hospitable beach, to receive the stranger youth of eve-
ry land with a mother's affection, does it not appear that with a mother's
prospective solicitude, her vision pierced the gloom of futurity, and rested
on that melancholy period when her own persecuted sons should bo obliged
to visit other climes in pursuit of science, because at home they would not
be allowed to drink the waters of knowledge, except at fountains which
they deemed polluted ? As if she foresaw the time when her own expatri-
ated children would be borne afar, and afar on the surge of every ocean,
and cast on every distant shore, there, like uprooted plants, to perish, un-
less fostered by the hand of foreign kindness. There was a time when the
other nations of Europe were indebted to Ireland ; but her fortunes chang-
ed ; the means of conferring benefits were taken from her, and in her turn
she became their debtor. To the seminaries of Germany and Italy, and still
more to those of France, she owes, under the same providence of Almighty
God, the unbroken succession of her priesthood during the persecution of
her religion ; and now that it has ceased, she acknowledges the obligation
in the fullness of her own gratitude, as if she had deserved nothing at their
hands.
' About the close of the seventh century, Egfred, King of Northumberland,
made a transitory incursion into the country, and this was the first foreign
enemy, coming in the attitude of hostility, that ever trod on Irish soil.
After his expulsion, Ireland enjoyed her usual tranquillity hntil about the
beginning of the ninth century, when the Danes and Norwegians aimed at,
and partly succeeded in effecting, what they considered a permanent estab-
lishment in that delightful country. The effort, we are told, cost them a
struggle of thirty yeai-s ; and we know from the history of other nations
which they visited merely as a passing scourge, that theu- hatred of those
studies which gave polish and refinement to social life, was equaled only
by their hatred of Christianity. In Ireland they had time and opportunity
to indulge the double hatred— they had abundant material whereon to
wreak their Gothic vengeance, by destroying monasteries, in which science
and religion dwelt like sisters in the same sanctuary, and against which the
Danes cherished a universal and hereditary spite. They were inhabited by
monks, a class of men who have been so traduced, and calumniated by the
learned ingratitude of modern times, that their very name sounds in the
ear of popular credulity, as synonymous with ignorance and indolence.
They were not ignorant, my brethren ; but that ignorance which is charged
upon them, would be at this day ours, if they had not been learned. One
portion of their time was devoted to prayer and singing the praises of God ;
the residue was employed in transcribing the Holy Scriptures, and books of
antiquity. They were not indolent ; on the contrary we find them in every
country, engaged viith patient industry in building across the middle ages
that br?dge which connects ancient with modern literature, and by which
the wisdom and the folly of other days and of other generations have trav-
eled down to us. They were engaged in saving whatever of learning could
be saved by hujjian exertion from the ravages of those turbid waters that
swept beneath its extensive span. The annals of pagan as well as of Chris-
tian Ireland were deposited in these monasteries, which were pillaged and
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.- 35
destroyed by the vandalism of the northern invaders. Then did perish
those national monuments, the absence of which Doctor Johnson, in the
name of enlightened posterity, deplores, because, says he, being the records
of an ancient and once an illustrious people, if they had come down to us,
they would have thrown light on two important but disputable subjects ;
viz : " the origin of nations, and the affinity of languages." They have not
come down to us; and we can judge of ancient Ireland, from Irish docu-
ments, only as we judge of a long ruined edifice, by the quality of the scat-
tered fragments which strew the place around. After the destruction of
her monasteries, however, in the ninth and tenth centuries, the sun of her
literary glory appears to have set ; although the reflection of his departed
splendor, like the mellow light of evening, lingered on her horizon ; and dur-
ing the darkness — the night that followed — hers were some of the bright-
est stars in the firmament of letters.
The Danes werg flnally expelled, just time enough to show that the coim-
try was still unconqucred, and free from every foreign yoke, when the Eng-
lish commenced its invasion about the year 1171. Then it was that Eng-
land's second Henry established in Ireland a power which, under all cir-
cumstances, would perhaps have been a blessing, if it had been conducted
on the principles of distributive justice or of common equity ; but which, as
it was, operated like a canker worm at the root' of the nation's happiness,
blighting every virtue that adorns human nature, and giving occasion to
the exercise of every vice that degrades humanity. But, on the very thresh-
old of this topic, a question arises, and it is asked by what right did he
Invade, and by what title did he claim the territory of an unoffending peo-
ple ? Why, the ostensible right was a written instrument, obtained by
some means or other, almost twenty years before, from Adrian IV., Bishop
of Rome and Pontiff of the Universal Church. In virtue of this, Ireland
was disposed of in the form of a donation, under certain stipulated terms.
The invader knew very -well that the donation was a mockery ; but then it
might serve a purpose. It was carefully concealed until the desired mo-
ment arrived ; then ambition grasped the sword, and artifice thought to
hide its lancet point, in the folds of this flimsy document ; in order that
while the scruples of the nation should be excited, touching the Pope's
authority, its liberties might be assassinated quietly, and with as little waste
of English blood as possible. The Irish people then, as well as now, bowed
to the spiritual authority of the Pope, as the visible head of the Christian
Church ; but then as well as now, they knew that the act of Adrian did not
derive its authority from Him " whose kingdom was not of this world."
The document 'may have surprised and divided the nation; it may have
weakened, though it did not paralyze the arm of resistance ; but the fact is,
that at all times England's best title was the sword. The Irish soon after
protested publicly against the whole proceedings; and forwarded to the
Vatican itself a remonstrance, which is written in a tone of uncompromising
complaint, and which, but for the deeply-wounded spirit of those who
penned it, would be considered reprehensible even at this day ; such is the
bitter independence of its language. This was the most unwarrantable
stretch of assumed prerogative in the annals of what modern writers call
papal usurpation. It was unnepessary, it was unavailing, it was unjust.
Arid having said thus much, I will be permitted to show, by a few remarks,
that this and similar acts have become too much the theme of satirical ani-
madversion and unmerited invective.
Good sense, and sound criticism, and common justice require, that be-
fore we pronounce on the proceedings of former ages, we should examine
them in connection with the times in which they occurred ; the cotempo-
riucous prejudices, the nature of the governments, the manners and gen-
36 AECHBISHOP HUGHES
eral conditionof society -when they happened, should all be thrown into
the scale of judgment ; and they would guide us to a just "s erdict of cen-
sure or of approbation. The direct contrary, however, is the general prac-
tice with writers otherwise eminent and learned. They seize an isolated
fact in the darkness of the dark ages, and drag it forth naked, divested of
all its concomitant circumstances, to be judged, and, as a matter of course,
to be condemned by the superior light of the present day.
If they allowed it, kowever, to return naked as they found it, the world
would not be, as it is, the enlightened dupe of unsuspected prejudice on
a thousand historical and religious topics. But disregarding the_ moral
of the Holy Scripture, they put new cloth on old raiment, and dismiss the
fact, whatever it may be, in its chequered and consequently ridiculous dra-
pery. Thus, for example, when we are told that Popes interfered with the
government of kingdoms, it should not be left untold that kings and na-
tions had first invoked that interference, and besought them in the name
of humanity and religion, to protect the claims of justice, to prevent civil
war, and the shedding of kindred blood. It should not be left untold that
very frequently the brows to whom it belonged were too weak to sustain
the diadem, against the usurpations of some other aspirant, who was
ready to tear it away. Interest, in the form of chivalrous gratitude, not
unfrequently tendered a kingdom at the feet of the Pontiff, and found its
best security in receiving it as a fief of the Holy See, by the common
tenure of the feudal system which prevailed. Thus, the power of the
Popes was as simple in its origin as the power by which a priest, or other
clergyman, settles a dispute between two neighbors, who appeal to him
rather than to the dagger or the magistrate. The influence which they
possessed enabled them to extend the shield of peaceful justice for the
protection of injured and otherwise defenceless innocence. If they became
formidable to kings, it was because kings laid the foundations on which
they built the edifice of power. The state of the world is changed ; that
power has been taken from them, and transferred to others. If it had not,
the Pope at this day could effect, without bloodshed, what English bayo-
nets will be necessary to accomplish in the kingdom of Portugal. 1 re-
joice, for the sake of religion, that it has been removed from the chair of
St. Peter ; because he who occupies that chair is not an angel, but a hu-
man being, and whenever he mingles in human affairs he is liable to
be swayed by human motives. This was possibly the case with Adrian
IV.; he was an Englishman, and, so far as in him lay, he bequeathed Ire-
land, which never was at his disposal, by feudal right or otherwise ; he be-
queathed it, nevertheless, as an appendage to his country's greatness. This
is the fact. And yet there are considerations which might shield him from
the harsh severity with which even Catholic writers have visited his mem-
ory. He is known to have been a man austere and simple in his manners,
and unblemished in the sanctity of his life ; but it was his lot to govern
the Church at a time when the prejudices of temporal power, alluded to
above, were already established by prescription. On the other hand, the
motives which prompted him to the act were evidently good. We can see
by the very tenor of the document, that he was led to suppose" the good of
religion and the promotion of piety were the only objects for which Henry
the Second desired the sovereignty of Ireland. For, my brethren, unre-
strained ambition, whether it operates on the bosoms of kings or of other
men, does not hesitate to put on the appearance of sanctity, to make use of
religion, aye, and of religion's God, as stepping-stones beneath its feet, if
it cannot otherwise ascend the eminence to wliich'it aspires.
You will pardon this apparent digression from my subject. My limits
would not allow me to delineate the anatomy of Irish history ; I could only
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 3^
V-
exhibit tlie mere skeleton ; and as the concession of Adrian is one of its
most important joints, I felt prompted by a sense of justice to the calumni-
ated dead, to trace its connection to the circumstances of the times in which
it took place.
During the period subsequent to the English invasion, we behold noth-
ing but ruin and desolation, where we have been hitherto admiring the
vision of Ireland's now departed glory. The portion of the country which
was conquered by the first adventurers was denominated the Pale, an ap-
propriate and significant term, pregnant with all the partiality that power
could confer on those who were within its limits, and with all the injus-
tice, tyranny, and oppression which the spirit of lawless conquest could
inflict on those who were without. By virtue of the state secret, the little
wire, whicli was carefully concealed from the vulgar gaze, but which
moved every spring in the machinery of government, the seeds of national
jealousy, of reciprocal hatred and revenge, were sown and fostered ; and
when these passions grew up into a harvest of political disorder, then
those who had moved the wire came forth from behind the curtain, in the
name of loyalty, to reap the profits. They had a right to them. Thus, the
laws produced a kind of refles operation profitable to the governor and his
minions, in proportion as it was ruinous to the people. One deputy after
another appeared to represent the majesty of England ; and with few ex-
ceptions, private interest, avarice, and ambition were the standards which
regulated their administration. They went forth at intervals to extend
the " pale ;" and when they had depopulated a section of the cou'utry,
leaving behind them, not the, conquered inhabitants, but the silence of
death and the solitude of the sepulchre, the news was transmitted to Eng-
land, and reached the monarch's ear in the character of a victory " gained
over the natives."
In the judicial department the case was even worse, if possible. The
laws stood at the portals of judgment, to prevent justice from entering;
and when murder appeared, his sabre reeking with human blood, the first
question of him who sat upon the tribunal was touching the birth-place of
tlie fallen victim, an important question ; for if he was one of the original
jiroprietorsof the soil, which they expressed by calling him a "mere Irish-
man," then the statute declared that it was no felony to kill him. The
whole nation, at different times, petitioned for the protection of the English
laws, but their petitions were as often rejected. This is a sketch of the
policy adopted and pursued by the government in Ireland, from the inva-
sion down to the accession of Queen Elizabeth ; but the nature of the
present occasion would make it criminal in me to torture your feelings by
any further description.
This bad system of government naturally caused Ireland to retrograde
in morals and in virtue, as well as in science and literature. And yet. Sir
John Bavis, an Englishman and a Protestant, tells us there was less crime
there than in England, in the reign of James I., 200 years a^o. He was
then attorney-general, and the first in that capacity who visited all the
parts of Ireland ; his office qualified him to pronounce, and, comparing the
.innals of guilt in both countries, he strikes the balance of morality decidedly
in favor of Ireland. A similar testimony was given, the other day, in the
House of Peers (where it would not have passed uncontradicted, if it had ,
not been susceptible of proof), by ano^ier Protestant nobleman, that at this
moment the proportion of crime is doubly greater in England than in the
unhappy country of whose ignorance and vices so much has been said, even
on this side of the Atlantic. England, and every other country, has its
sijlendid virtues, and I am as ready to proclaim them as I am to admit that
Ireland has her numerous vices. But I mention these facts as a matter of
38 AECHBISHOP HTTGHES
pleasing astonishment, that her vices are not more. When we reflect that
the blessings of justice and mercy, and an impartial government, -which
makes other nations virtuous and happy, have been denied to Ireland for
nearly seven hundred years, we would hardly expect to find a remnant of
virtue left; but to see her surpass them in the test of comparison, this must
appear a phenomenon in the order of morality. For, my brethren, there is
a connection between the cause and the effect in moral as well as physical
nature. If the tempest roll in fury on the smoothest sea, that sea will im-
bibe a portion of the spirit that disturbed it ; it will rise from its slumbers,
it will foam and rage, and woe to the fragile bark that is overtaken by its
indignation. So, if a people are oppressed, if their treaties are violated, if
their generous confidence is abused, and their professions disbelieved, and
their honor doubted, and their sacred rights invaded, and their liberties
trodden under foot — if, in a word, they have lost everything except a paltry
life, which, but for the hope of religion, would not be worth endurance,
then it is not to be wondered at, if such a people sometimes turn on their
oppressors in the spirit of vindictive retribution. This has been the case
more than once in unhappy Ireland. No nation could feel more keenly the
disgrace of her degradation, the injustic^^f her bondage : is it, then, mat-
ter of surprise that the peculiar sensibilities of her heart sometimes rose to
her head, and engendered there that species of political frenzy which broke
out at intervals in fitful, wild, and sometimes infuriated ebullitions of
revenge ?
For the fact is, that Ireland at all times understood the equal rights to
which she was en.titled, ,and the measure of strict impartial justice without
which she would not, she could not, be satisfied. Begin at whatever epoch
you think proper to select, and descend from one step to another of her
history down to the present day, test the feelings of every generation
as you pass, and you will perceive that no duration of time could ever tame
the mind of Ireland to the yoke of unmerited and ignominious servitude.
You might tell the youth, the stripling of the village, or the peasant boy,
around whose tender hands you bound the manacles in punishment of his
birth-place, that they came to him by lineal descent, that his fathers had
worn them for ages, that they were consecrated to his family, hereditary
appendage of the soil ; you might tell him all this, and instead of concili-
ating, you only roused his impatience for the moment when he might
burst the fetters, and remove the malediction. What ! injustice heredi-
tary ? Oh, no. But one thing was hereditary — that magnanimous and
immortal spirit of the nation, which for so many ages has been tortured,
but could not be broken on oppression's wheel. The neck of Ireland might
have been bound at any time, on a level with her feet, in the dust ; but, even
then, her soul, towering in the consciousness of its own original integrity,
stood erect, unsubdued, unbending, and— indomitable. This was the
secret of that turbulence of character which ignorance has ascribed to her,
and recorded against her in the book of calumny. Until recently there
w:is no mirror to reflect ou England and on the world the ima^e of her
feelings, but there were at all times the scattered materials from which
such a mirror might have been fabricated. Those feelings were like ob-
structed waters, breaking out irregularly wherever they found an issue •
when, at length, a superior mind arose to preside over them • then they
flowed m one direction, and, as they advanced, acquired the easy maiestv
as well as the irresistible influence oT a mighty tide, which swept away the
barriers that had hitherto prevented justice and peace from embracine
each other. °
The laws of England, which were refused to the country while their
operation might have been salutary, were extended in the reign of Eliza-
ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 39
beth when they had been new-modeled in accordance with the change o(
relijiOn in the state, and were no longer desirable. Then, for the first
time, they took their march throughout all Ireland, bearing liberty in one
hand and degradation in the other. If they had asked the apple of her eye,
in exchange for the boon of freedom and of justice, Ireland would hare given
it. But much as she loved civil liberty, there was one thing that she loved
infinitely more : it was the faith which she received in olden times. This
she regarded as the boon of heaven : it was hers before she knew England ;
it was at all times the solace of her grief; it was the anchor of her last and
best hope, and neither bribery nor persecution could detach her from it : she is
at all times seen clinging to it with the tenacity of despair: thus leaving an-
other instance to prove that faitli is stronger than death, and that persecution
can make martyi's or hypocrites, and there its power ends. The civil oppres-
sion of Ireland would have terminated the moment she embraced, or pretended
to embrace, the religion which the Parliament had decreed, and were deter-
mined to support. But she saw no reason to believe in its Veracity, and to
profess it would have been hypocrisy ; it would have been acting against her
conscience ; it would have been apostasy from her God ; it would, in fine, have
been that base thing of which Ireland has proved herself incapable. For this
she is entitled to the admiration of the world ; because, for this she sufiered.
The laws continued unequal, and the inevitable result of their operation was to
break the intercourse of charity among men of different religions, arraying the
Catholic against the Protestant, and the Protestant against the Catholic ; and
in spite of their united efforts to exclude it, intruding perpetually to disturb
the harmonies of social and sometimes domestic life.
You may be surprised, my brethren, that I have dwelt so long on the early
portion of Ireland's history, and so briefly on the civil thraldom and religious
persecution which have succeeded each other since the English invasion in the
twelfth century. But why should it be otherwise, when the wisdom of better
times has applied an effectual remedy to the evils of that long-injured country,
and she herself has already forgiven, what it may not be so easy to forget ? It
was but yesterday the Legislature of Great Britain covered over her wounds
with the mantle of justice, and mine shall not be the hand to tear it off so
soon Those wounds already begin to cicatrize ; and they say that darkness
and silence are best calculated to promote convalescence ; and, besides, if I did
exhibit to j'our view a full picture of Ireland's wrongs, pity would rise from
the canvass, and extort the tribute of your tears; whereas the occasion calls for
no tears, except peradventure those of gratulation and of joy.
But my brethren, I would not have you retire from this place unim-
proved by the moral of a subject, which, but for its illustrative connection
with the state of fallen humanity, would be altogether foreign from a
Christian pulpit. Let us not forget, that every one of us has to watch the
first movements of the very. same passions which have produced so many
black clouds in the moral as well as political atmosphere of now-regenerated
Ireland. For, to trace her misfortunes to any national peculiarity in the
English character, would be unsatisfactory and unjust. We all know that
the genuine English character is proverbial for its sterling, almost infalli-
ble, integrity — the more to be admired, because it is unclogged by any out-
ward display. Neither would it be just to trace them to the religion of
England, because Ireland's oppression commenced nearly four hundred
years before that religion existed. Religion is the daughter of God ; her
office is to pluck thorns out of the human breast, not to plant them — to
prepare men for a better world, by raising, not depressing them in the scale
of virtue here. It would be cruel to charge religion with the crimes of
which Ireland has been the victim, not only since the Beformation, but be-
fore, when there was but one religion, and the good of both nations wor-
40 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
sTiipped God around the same altars. Where, then, shall we find the solu-
tion ? Go to the ground where children are at play ; wait till a quarrel
arises, and the spoils are to be divided ; and ascertain how it happens that
the largest portion of the common tojs remains hy right in possession of
the strongest or most artful competitor. Here is the solution. Here is the
infant passion; but do not lose sight of it here; watch it up to manhood,
pursue it across the ocean to the shores of Africa, and there you will detect
it, putting manacles, by the same right, on hands that were free. Observe
its operation on a large scale, and you will behold it, as in unhappy Ire-
land, by tlie same right, grinding down the immortal energies of a chival-
rous nation under the millstone of predominant, and therefore irresponsible
power.
The history of that country is the tragedy of the bad passions, and
every good man rejoices that it has been brought to a close. We rejoice,
because the Catholics have obtained that to which they were at all times en-
titled by the rights of nature and the laws of justice ; we rejoice more, be-
cause in this reason and principle have triumphed over prejudice and folly.
We rejoice for. the sake of England as well as Ireland, for the sake of
Protestants as well as Catholics. We rejoice in the name of all the virtues,
in the name of justice, and of peace, and of humanity, and of religion, and
of God. To Him is the glory and the praise. He has made use of human
means, and great must be the satisfaction of those who have been made
the instruments of a victory, different from other victories, in this, that it
has cost neither blood nor tears. Does not every good heart in this assem-
bly rejoice ? Surely that generous spirit of our happy country, the freest
under the sun, that spirit which lately cheered the captive onward in the
enterprise, is gladdened by its success. Those who look back to Ireland as
the home of their infancy, must feel the influence of a yet stronger sensa-
tion. But what must be the feast which this day presents to the feelings
of those who in times of greater peril, and for the object we commemorate,
risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — men whose for-
tune it was to have been born in Ireland, with a genius which the Crown
could not purchase, the Parliament could not crush, and who were con-
strained to leave their country, because — they loved their country too
much.
Greece would have immortalized them ; and America, the country of
their choice, does honor them, as they do honor to their various profes-
sions ; their pens have been employed even here in the vindication of their
degraded country and their countrymen. The stigma has been removed ;
and to them this occasion must be a joyful one. Neither is that affection
diminished by the consideration that others bear away the honor of hav-
ing achieved an event, which their exertions contributed so much to accel-
erate. Posterity will do them justice; and their names, some of which I
could, but do not mention, will stand conspicuous on the records of Irish
talent and of Irish patriotism.
But enumeration would be endless as the subject itself. I thank you
sincerely for your kind and patient attention ; I will now descend from this
place to mingle with you in the expression of our common gratitude to
Almighty God, for the termination of those moral evils to which I have
.'lUuded— and with you also, to breathe the prayer of hope, that henceforth
the inhabitants of Ireland, and not of Ireland alone, but of every country on
the globe, may live as brethren, if not in religion, at least in social kind-
ness, in the bond of holy peace, in the practice of virtue, and of piety and
fidelity to our common and blessed God. This is the benediction I would
invoke upon you and on the world. In the name of the Father, and of
^he Son, and of the Holy Ghost. — Amen.
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 41
SPEECHES ON THE SCHOOL QUESTION.
On July 20th, 1840, an important meeting of the Catholics of New Yorl<
Was held in the school-house attached to St. Patrick's Church, at which
the Very Rev. Dr. Power presided ; and in accordance with the wishes of
the Right Reverend and respected Bishop, stated to the meeting the naked
(ruth respecting the origin of the present agitation of their claims as
Catholics to a portion of the School Fund of this State, for the education
of their children. Towards the end of last January, Dr. Power received a
letter from the Rev. Mr. Schneller, of Albany, earnestly urging that he
should come and judge for himself, and see how easy it would be for the
Catholics to obtain a portion of that fund which was set apart by the law
for the education of all the children of the commonwealth, but of the
benefits of which, under its present management, they were unable, as
Catholics, conscientiously to partake. After some deliberation he called a
meeting of the Trustees of all the Catholic churches in the city, and laid
the subject before them. He knew that amongst those trustees were men
of different shades of politics, but he also knew, and he said it in the
fullness and sincerity of his heart, that politics had nothing to do with the
question upon which he convened them ; that it was a question which
appealed to every one of them as Catholics with equal force, whatever
might be their respective political opinions, and he anticipated no dissen-
sion, no wavering, no hesitation amongst them on this all-important ques-
tion, and he was not disappointed. They unanimously resolved to apply
for a portion of that fund to which they had contributed as citizens of
this State, and to which they were undoubtedly entitled, and for that
purpose agreed that he should go to Albany ; and he did go accordingly.
And having gone, he found nothing but honesty of purpose, as he believed,
and he returned to this city thoroughly persuaded that the application
would be successful if it was pressed forward with Catholic unanimity.
And this expectation he doubted not would have been realized but for an
unfortunate article that appeared in the Truth Teller of this city, which
endeavored to convert what was purely a question of Catholic and religious
principle into a political one — slandered their motives, and declared that
with sinister and unworthy objects in view, they were preparing to press
upon the Corporation of the city a demand which, if complied with,
would be a palpat)le violation of the constitution of the State, and the
equality of rights which it secured to all citizens. This opening of the
warfare against the Catholics proceeding from amongst themselves, gave
color and support to the hostility which they afterwards experienced.
The Eight Rev. Bishop HuGnES then rose to address the meeting, and was
received witli enthusiastic plaudits. When they had subsided, he s.iid, he
42 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
had listened with great attention to the explanations offered by the Very
Reverend gentleman who presided over the meeting, and to those nhich tol-
lowed from Dr. Sweeney; and it afforded him very great pleasure and con-
solation to have reason to believe, from the solemnity of the statements ot
both, that a higher and a holier feeling than mere politics was the soul ol
this agitation. (Applause.) The reason why he expressed this pleasure was,
that of all things he dreaded the introduction of political feelings as most
destructive of their internal peace, and of that calmness of mind which dis-
poses man either for just judgment or the discharge of his religious obliga-
tions. He had known nothing which was so intoxicating in its effects, even
on good men. as that unexplained chapter in the history of the human mind,
the intluenceof party politics. He was glad, therefore, to hear the disclaim-
ers which were made this evening ; for when he had read, on a foreign shore,
of the attempt made in one of the churches here to distribute papers in the
pews, he felt how far that feeling influenced the actions of men. He had
come to this meeting because he believed it was not a political meeting ; be-
cause the question which brought that meeting together was infinitely above
anything that could be found in mere politics. ' It was a question, too, that
was not new to him ; it was a question on which he had deeply reflected
before he had departed for a foreign land, not fores^eing that it would arise
before his return, the question, namely, whether Catholic children were ex-
posed to the danger of forfeiting their faith by an attendance on these schools.
For that purpose he had obtained a copy of all the books which it was stated
to him were used in these schools, and he had examined them deliberately ;
and though he found some things that were objectionable, yet, on the whole,
they appeared to him sufficiently free from anything that could be construed
into a direct attack on their religious principles. He had had reason, however,
since his return, to believe that, in fact, all the books had not been submitted
to him, but that some books which contained objectionable matter were
withheld. He had seen one such at least, since, and he was satisfied that no
Catholic parent, who felt his responsibility to God, could suffer it as a school-
book in the hands of his children; and therefore it was, that he was inter-
ssted in the question which then engaged their attention ; not as a politi-
cian, bat as a Bishop having charge of this Diocese, answerable to the Eter-
nal judge for the discharge of his responsible duty, which included a jealous
and tender solicitude that the infant mind received only suitable food, and
such instruction as was salutary in its tendency. Then, with these remarks,
and those which had gone before, he felt, if politics were mixed up with the
question under discussion, by others, that meeting was not responsible for it ;
and he hoped that in future time, politics, except as a corollary, would be
wholly left out of consideration, and that parties and party men would be
left wholly to themselves. They would see, before he finished, the necessity
of this course. But if he could have thought that mere politics had brought
them together, he should have felt it a reproach to themselves, and a dese-
cration of that place, connected as it was with the Cathedral of the Diocese.
He therefore again rejoiced that higher purposes had brought them together ;
and he would observe that, feeling as he did the injustice exercised towards
the Catholics by the operation of the Common School system, as it was now
dispensed, if they had not been previously called together, before he had
been home three weeks, he would have warned Catholics either to have that
system of education expurgated, or to withdraw their children from it.
True, it professed to be a system of Common School education, but it was
equally true, that while its great professed charm was the expulsion of sec-
tarianism, there was in it, and inseparable from it, a sectarianism of another
kind, which was sapping the young minds of the Catholic children ; and un-
happily, though parents might impart instruction to their offspring, the ope-
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 43
dtion cf this system was snoh that the instruction of tlie parent was lilce
water diopped into a vessel tliat leaked bolow ; it passed away, and nothing
was found remaining; the labor of parents was neutralized lay secret influ-
ences, and notwithstanding all that tlieir parents and pastors were doing to
engraft in the minds of their children the taith they had received from their
fathers, tliey are entirely disappointed in the result. It was not his intention
to examine at length the tendency of the system in its civil and social bear-
vngs, nor to inquire whether a wise statesman would adopt such a system,
but he hesitated whether wise statesmen, in a country lil^e this, would
recommend it, even under these relations. Did they know whence it came 2
It originated in the dark regions of Prussia. And why? Because the King
of Prussia saw the time was coming when the people wonld be educated ;
and with the wisdom and cunning of absolute diplomacy, he thought that
education, which the people were determined to have, might be made by
delicate means, and skillful management, an admirable instrument for work-'
ing out the purposes of enlightened despotism. Hence the Common School
system of that country. And we all know what grandiloquent praises were
bestowed on the great and liberal monarch. Men exclaimed, " See what even
the absolute King of Prussia has done for the cause of education !" Oh I but
he took care to have the masters and the whole system under his own con-
trol That scheme having succeeded, another was introduced on a still more
comprehensive plan, viz., apian not only of a common education, bu-l; of a com-
mon religion. In those dominions there were two distinct branches, the
Lutherans and the Calvinists (they knew that the Catholics were not the
subjects for such an experiment), and these two branches were compelled to
meet, where they never met before, and read a common liturgy. Tlie King
allowed them, indeed, their own opinions in private : one might be Lutheran
and the other Calvinist, in private ; but, for the good of the State and the
general harmony, they were made to coalesce in a common ritual, prepared
by himself. He carried this system with the Protestants; but he could not
with the Catholics. (Applause.) From that country, then, this common
education system spread, and in France education is a mere bureau of the
Police, and yet th.it government wants credit for this syste-n of education,
and for taking from the parent his peculiar duties. They go to the parent
and say, in effect, "AVe are more interested in the education of your children
than you can be."
The Right Rev. Bishop continued: God forbid that he should even suspect
that our Government had such feelings. The policy of statesmen might be
bad, while their intentions were good, and that the policy of this system was
bad would be seen, by reflecting how it operated in religious belief. They
wished a common education, because education is one of the greatest of
blessings, and they knew no religious denomin.ation would have their con-
sciences tyrannized over. They exclude all sectarianism, so called ; but they
have here a secret power of deceit, which, wherever they go, operates on
the young mind. Now, 'this sy-stera w.<is manifestly not essential to the
preservation of the United States, or of this State ; and what were its bear-
ii\gs on the inhabitants of the State? The system has not yet been te.sted by
its results; sufiioient time has not elapsed to develop them; but when they
reflected that all morality was founded on religion, and that this was ail
attempt to make man moral on the basis of education without religion,
ho would ask what could be the harvest that such culture would produce,
and he replied, time alone can proclaim and determine. For his own part,
he was of opinion though it was not nominally infidelity, that it was practical
infidelity, and that, instead of sectarianism, they would have those with no
feeling in favor of religion; that the bearings of the system were to produce
men with no feeling but of indifference for religion, unless, perhaps, a feeling •
44 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
of contempt for religion. The wise, the immortal "Washington, he who had
so much talent and so much dignity of character, leaving, as it were, the lasi
words of the dying patriot to his' country, said, "Beware of the. man who
attempts to inculcate morality without religion." (Applause.) That was
Washington ; and he wondered whether the advocates of this system, who
])roclaimed as a point of merit that it excluded all religion, conceived them-
selves to be following in the footsteps of the illustrious Washington. The
Right Rev. Prelate th?n said he would pass from that to the religious bear-
ings of the question,'and he thought he could state to them safely that a
Catholic could not conscientiously approve this system, if he were an enlight-
ened Catholic, and understood his duty to his God and the principles of his
religion, and remembered that education comprehended the mysterious 'de-
velopment of the young mind, with its three-fold faculties of will, memory,
and understanding. The inculcation of knowledge is only a part of an en-
lightened system of education; a training of the wiLr, is as necessary as the
cultivation of the other faculties of the mind, and as the Common School sys-
tem is in this respect deficient, he repeated that a parent who undei'stood
that system, and had a knowledge of his religion and of his own responsi-
bility, would never submit to it. The Catholic primitive, continuous, per-
petual church never recognized the principles of leaving the mind of a child
without religious culture until it grew up. Such a course was contrary to
the spirit of their church, and was contrary to the practice and preaching
of the apostles to the Pagans ; for when they converted the Pagan head of a
family, the children were also trained up to the church as a part of the
formation of the mind. The parent was the coadjutor of the pastor, and
both were like guardian angels over the tender mind, and thus they transmit-
ted the blessings they enjoyed to their children. Therefore, he said, this
common system was Protestant, but it was not the system Catholics could
adopt with their children, because they gave religious instruction to their
children as a duty which was imperative, while Protestants were indepen-
dent of religious education, and were of opinion that it was best to have
religion to come at some uncertain period, when a change of heart would
occur, and a person was to "join the church." Bat Catholics Ijad the
spiritual interests of their children at heart, and their own responsibility
for their eternal welfare ; and though by sending them to these Com-
mon Schools they might not be taught Presbyterianism, or Episcopalian-
ism, or Baptism; yet, if by drop following drop, if by expression following
expression, their young minds should be influenced, alienated, and imper-
ceptibly drawn from their own faith, he asked, could a parent, knowing his
obligation to God, permit it. He contended for the right of conscience, aud
for the sacred right of every man to educate his own children ; and when
these are the consequences that follow this system of Common School educa-
tion, he asked if it were just to tax such a man for its support, while its ten-
dency was to draw away the mind of his child from the religion which ho
professed and which he desired to teach him. -(Applause.) The question
was a simple one, and he was sure they would see but very little ditf'erence
between it and the question of tithes for the support of the Protestant church
in England and Ireland. To be sure, in those countries they had uot ex-
cluded the Catholics from the churches: they said, our churches are open ;
we have provided them expressly for your benefit; if you don't come, it is
your own fault ; but whether you come or not, you must give us y<iiir mon-
ey, and they did accordingly take the Catholics' money. Did the Catholics
submit? No, they adhered to their religion, and iVhen they did not put
their own hands into their pockets, somebody else did, and took out their
money for them. (Laughte-r.) He did not ask for the Catholics anj thing
that was not just; that was not constitutional. All laws of the country—
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 45
all (Constitutional laws — are necessarily founded on the principle wliicli se.
cures to every man his religious rights, and if any law trenches on that
right, he asserted that it was not, and could not he constitutional. In this
he was borne out even hy the former practice of those who administered tho
school fund. The fact was, that for a longtime this money was distributed
among the different religious societies for the purpose of education. He was
told there were 1,500 Catholic oliildreti attending these schools: and suppose
Catholics gave them the same education tliat they would get in those schools,
did they notefiect the same benefit to the State? But if, with morality,
they also at^proper times inculcated the principles of religion, he asked
whether they should not make the rising generation better citizens, more
upright in their intercourse with their fellow-men, more ^mindful of the
sacred relations of the marriage state, and more attentive to their social du-
ties ? He had been told that the old system was not attended with inconve-
nience, but that some agent or minister of those funds had peculated or mis-
applied them — but he was not a Catholic. (Laughter.)
But why were the Catholics to suffer for the peculation of others ? It
was a constitutional principle that every man should enjoy not only his
own opinions, but that he should discharge according to his own sense of
it, Ms duty to God, of which the education of his child is one of the most
sacred. He claimed nothing for the Catholic which was not at the same
time due to other denominations — to the Jew and the Gentile. He was
pleased that the gentlemen who had preceded him had advocated no
crooked policy — the changing a name and not a cause; and he hoped the
time had gone by when Catholics would bend their heads as though to
court a burden, but that henceforth they would stand erect. It was no-
thing but simple justice which they contended for, and if tliey should not
get it, they must only submit with the philosophy which gives dignity to
disappointment. (Great applause.)
He had arrived so recently that he had not had time to examine all the
facts in the case ; but the testimony of the clergy whom he had consulted
was (Unanimous and decisive that the influence of these schools is prejudi-
cial to the faith of the Catholic children. Then the question resolved
itself into this — should they submit to this if they had the power to cor-
rect it ; or should they submit even without an effort to correct it ? That
was the question, and it had three issues. First, those who had the dispo-
sition of these funds should dispense them according to that clear and
beautiful privilege of the Constitution, which secures the religious rights
of all and inflicts evil on none. Now if they gave Catholics a portion of
that fund after taxing them for the accumulation of the fund, the benefit
to the Statewould be the same and the disposition would be consistent with
their constitutional right, and they should receive it gratefully from those
who had the iDower to give it. But if they insisted that Catholics should
pay their money, and after seeing that they did pay, no real benefit was
conferre.d on them in return, but injui-y, he left it to those concerned whe-
ther they would go on in support of a system of that kind. He had an
illustration in point — not one furnished by Catholics, but by another de-
nomination whose magnanimity in contending for the principle of right
did them credit — ^he alluded to" the Synod of Ulster, the Presbyterians of
Ireland. They saw a system of religious instruction for the National
Schools in Ireland made up by the Government, as a kind of mixture of
diluted Scripture into essays which would suit either Unitarians, or Meth-
odists, or Baptists, or Episcopalians — a religious compound which did
not mean any thing precisely, but from which any one might take what ho
pleased. Now the Presbyterians, according to their religious belief, had a
fixed principle that the Bible, the whole Bible, and the Bible alone, was
40 ARCHBISHOP HCTGHES.
the best book of Education, and they protested against this system which
did not admit the Bible; and they stood up for their_ rights, and that.
strong iron-handed government, as it is, granted their claim ; and he asked
if it would not have been doing violence to those people to have taxed
them for the support of a system that would have been destructive of their
religious principles. Here was a case in point; and in precisely the same
course they were called upon by the circumstances of the present case, to
follow. And let him observe that men may weigh but little, and political
parties may weigh but little, and in point of importance, even money may
weigh but little : men may change, but if they took principle for their
guide and disencumbered it of all the rubbish of politics and all such
things, they would see it shine like a ray of light. What was the princi-
ple in this case to consider which they were convened together ? Why if
they were convinced, as he was, of the evil of the present system, they
could not send their children to these Common Schools with safety, as they
are now constituted. It remained, then, that they ask those having
the power to dispense a remedy to do it. If Catholics contributed to the
funds and a proportion were returned to them to be expended in precisely
the same way as at present, while Catholics preserved their direct religious
rights, they would be content, and no other party would have cause to
complain. But, as he had a book used in these Common Schools with him,
which had been this day handed to him by Dr. Power, he would read one
of its amiable little chapters to show its insidious and dangerous tendency
and to illustrate the system. The chapter is as follows :
It was Sunday morning. All the bells were ringing for church, and all the streets
were filled with people, moving in all directions, and here numbers of well-dressed
persons, and a long train of charity children were thronging in at the wide doors of a
handsome church ; there a nuaiber equally gay in dress were entering an elegant
meeting-house. A Roman Catholic congregation was turning into their chapel; every
one crossing himself, with a finger dipped in holy water, as he went in.
The opposite side of the street was covered with Quakers, distinguished by their
plain and neat attire, who walked without ceremony into a room as plain as themselves,
and took their seats, the men on one side, the women on the other, in silence. A
spacious building .was filled with an overflowing crowd of Methodists, while a small
society of Baptists assembled in the neighborhood.
Presently the services began. Some of the churches resounded with the solemn
organ, and the murmuring of voices following the minister in prayer; in others a single
voice was heard ; and in the quiet assembly of the Quakers not a sound was uttered.
Mr. Ambrose led his son Edwin round these assemblies; he observed them all with
great attention, but he did not so much as whisper lest he should interrupt any one.
When he was alone with his father, " Why," said Edwin, " do not all people agree to
go to the same place, and to worship Ood in the same way ? "
"And why should they agree?" replied his father. "'Do you not see that people
differ in a hundred other things? Do they all dress alike, and eat and drink alike, and
keep the same hours, and use the same diversion ?"
" In those things they have a right to do as they please," said Edwin.
" They have a right, too," answered his father, " to worship God as they please. It
is their own business, and concerns none but themselves."
And this, said the Rt. Rev. Bishop, is one of the lessons for cliildren. Now,
who does not see the malice of this, and how it will operate on the minds of
children of quick perceptions ? and children are capable of observing, and of im-
bibing in their souls cither good or bad instruction, at a very eflrly age,
" Tliey have a right, too," answered his father, " to worship God as they please It is
Iheir own business, and concerns none but themselves."
" But has not God ordered particular ways of worshiping him ?"
Why the child appears to have much more sense than his father. (Laughter.)
" But has not God ordered particular ways of worshiping him ?"
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 47
" He has directed the mind and spirit witti which he is to be worshiped, but not the
manner. Tluit is left for every one to choose. All these people like their own way lest."
And this to children, you observe.
" The several congregations now began to be dismissed, and streets were again over-
spread with persons going to their own homes. It clianced that a poor man fell dciwn
in tlie street in a fit of apoplexy, and lay for dead; his wife and children stood round
him, crying and lamenting in the bitterest distress. The beholders immediately flocked
round, and with looks and expressions of compassion gave their help. A Chureliman
raised the man from the ground by lifting him nnder the arms, while a Presbyterian
held his head, and wiped his face with his'handkerchief. A Roman Catholic lady took
nut her smelling-bottle, and applied it to her nose. A Methodist ran for a doctor. A
Quaker supported and comforted the woman ; and a Baptist took care of the children."
Edwin and his fa;her looked on. " Here," said Mr. Ambrose, " is a thing onwhich man-
kind is made to agree." '
So that religion is a matter of choice, but humanity is that in which all
agree. Why, he asked, if this humanity did not exist before Jesus Christ?
Yes, the Pagans understood it. But the malice was not so much in approving
good actions as in tljrowing ridicule on all religion; and yet this is the system
of instruction which our statesmen adopt for our youth — a system which will
give us what Washington cautioned us against, " morality without religion."
Let there bo granted to the Catholics a fair and just proportion of the funds
appropriated for the Common Schools, provided the Catholics will do with it
the same thing that is done in the Common Schools,.and leave no reason to
complain that the system is not followed. If they will do that they will take
away the Catholic's cause of anxiety for his children. Then, if they will not
give the Catholics a due proportion of the funds, let them be released from tlie
taxes for the creation of this fuad. But if they will do neither, and the present
system is insisted upon, the question is whether Catholics, even in this country,
are not compelled to do that for the Common Schools, which the Catholics of
Ireland do for the English church, contribute to that of which, in their con-
sciences, they cannot avail themselves. (Applause.)
One word, in conclusion, of politics and political men. For his part, he had
reason to believe — there were good patriots no doubt of both parties, though
perhaps such men were small ir\ numbers — but his opinion of the mass of them
was, that they care very little for us or for our rights, provided they can have
our services. That was his opinion of them generally speaking ; and therefore
he belonged to neither party ; nor should he ever belong to either party. ^Great
applause.) He cared not much which party succeeded ; he thought that both
one and the other were like the two sides of a copper; but one thing he should
like to see, whichever party might be in power — he should like to see justice
done to Catholics, for great respect for them was professed when their services
were required. He conceived, then, the principles to which he had adverted
claimed their first regard ; and if it were, as it struck him, then the Catholics'
first duty should be to secure the rights of conscience for themselves and for
their children. Men were changing, and be advised them, strenuously advised
them to look simply to principle. It would be to them a guide ; and whatever
course was taken, he should like to see them throw overboari person entirely.
He should like to see principle laid down as the guide of Catholics ; and this
principle spread out to reasonable men of every party, showing that they had
not a fair participation in the rights of conscience, of which this system deprived
them. Then they would be able to judge between friends and enemies, and he
could hot be a true American that would impose burdens to support a system
which weakened their children's regard for religion, and drew them from the
faith of their fathers. That was precisely the view in which the case presented
itself to him ; and whether this question had come up or not, before liis re-
turn, it had been his intention most assuredly to draw the attention of Catho-
ics to it. But now let them not be ready to impute motives — evil' motix es to
48 ARCnEISHOP HUGHES.
each other. Let them always be cautious not to ™Pyt<=j5ad >^?«^«f *°^f;^|j
other. Men will differ in their views; and he who is ^f |t°. ^P"^^/.,,;^
motive to his neighbor, is most liable to be misrepresented hmselt in turn
There was a way of treLting all questions, and yet leaving "^«^ ^^ characters
safe-not to weigh men's intentions, but leave them to God. I' 7^, "°;, *°^
men, living men, to judge of the intentions of their fellow-men. But let them
as Catholics and as citizens prove themselves worthy of that constitution under
which they lived, and which they must be prepared to support. Jiut couia
they support the system which he had explained? He was satisfied they
could not, and on this subject he believed there was not a difference of opinion
in the whole body of the clergy in New York.
[The Right Rev. Prelate resumed his seat amidst great applause.]
Meeting in tlie Basement of St. James' Clmrch,
Jnly27, 1840
Pursuant to a resolution of the meeting held in St. Patrick's
School-room, an adjourned meeting of the Catholics of New York
was held in the School-room in the basement of St. James' Church,
James street. Thomas O'Connor, Esq., was called to the chair, and
the secretaries of previous meeting were re-elected to their respective
offices. One of the secret.aries having read the minutes of the last
meeting, the venerable chairman opened the business of the evening
with a few pertinent remarks, during which the Right Reverend
Bishop Hughes entered the room, accompanied by a large body of
clergymen, and on being recognized he was loudly cheered. The
applause having subsided, the chairman proceeded with his re-
marks, and made allusion to some published statements respecting
liis share in the series of meetings which they had held, and
denied thjit he was ambitious to be more than a subaltern in their
just and righteous cause — a cause which that great meeting proved
to be one of deep and general interest with the Catholics of the
city — and a cause which interested so large a number, he was satis-
fierl, must ultimately succeed. That it had not succeeded before,
he believed, was attributable to the fact that the public dill not un-
derstand the question, nor would they attenrd to it until Catbolica
THE SCHOOL QUESTION'. >; 49
made themselves heard. He repudiated any political feeling in
connection with this subject, and counseled the Catholics to unani-
mity, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Com-
mon School Systeih with which they warred, he designated as a
monopoly of the worst kind, and in illustration of its evils he said
that now $111,000 a year were spent for the education of less
than 12,000 children, whereas, if the claims of the Catholics were
conceded, upwards of 30,000 children would be educated for the
same amount. After a few other observations he resumed his seat
loudly applauded.
The Right Reverend Bishop Hughes then came forward and was
received with great applause. He said, as the evening was short,
and as the object of the meeting was practical, he had deemed it
unnecessary to wait for a formal introduction, and especially as his
remarks had been so ably anticipated by their respected and vener-
able chairman, with whose sentiments, which his long experience,
and matured judgment, and sound Catholic feeling had inspired him
to utter, he (the Bishop) fully concurred. He entirely concurred
with the sentiment that in this country, when light is diffused on
any question in which justice and injustice are involved, the Ameri-
can people would deal justly, and not oppress any portion of the
people with injustice. He likewise concurred with their venerable
chairman in \he opinion that up to this time the question which
then occupied their attention had not been properly understood ; he
would go so far as to say that the persons who had declined
granting their reasonable request, had done so because they had
not understood the justice of their claims — nay, further, when this
matter was thoroughly understood, he was satisfied that even the
gentlemen connected with the public schools would admit their
claim. He was authorized to make this statement from a knowl-
edge of the genius and constitution of this nation. Here let but
their grievances be made known, and every honest man, and every
true American — every man who understands the justice and fair
play of the American constitution— would be ready to redress their
grievances. [Applause.]
Passing from the necessity for spreading abroad the true ground
of their claim, he would come to the design and intention of the
Legislature of this State in granting a bounty for the promotion of
education. And he would contend that it was a libel on the char-
acter of this great State to suppose it was e\'er intended or de-
signed that the education of the children of the poor should be
partial or injurious to some ; and he felt authorized, a,lso, from the
character and professions of those statesmen, to say that their in-
tention was both good and honest, that it was prompted in good
faith, and with a desire that every poor man's child should have
the benefit of this bounty, without any encroachment on any civil
privilege or religious right. [Applause.] Yet, notwithstanding
that this was the design, they saw that intention had been most
admirably defeated — that the object was prevented, and that the
4
50 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
matter had now assumed such a form that, contrary to the inten-
tions of the Legislature, Catholics were virtually excluded trom the
benefits of the system. This they would have an opportunity ot
seeing before he had done. No doubt, the intention was that the
money should be expended to make education general ; for every
enlightened and educated man was convinced that education was
such a blessing that he should not be consulting the true interests
of the country, unless he were disposed to fosfer the education of
the young ; but did they think it would be worthy an enlightened
American Legislature to conceive such a design, and to plan it lor
the purpose of impairing the universal right of conscience and its
liberty ? [Applause.]
The histoty of the application of this bounty of the State had been
already alluded to. The first principle was that this bounty of the
State should be apportioned to the different religious societies, that
they might educate the children under their charge; but because one
peculated or perverted this bounty to iniquitous purposes, not con-
templated by the Legislature, the whole was put under the manage-
ment of school directors— he might not be right in the use of
terms, but they Would know what he meant — and they were to
visit the schools, and one principle which they were to carry out was
to exclude sectarianism utterly and entirely ; and in examining the
reasons of the Common Council for refusing to accede to the claim
of Catholics, they found that this exclusion of sectarianism was
thought the great charm of the system, but he should show them that
it did not exclude sectarianism, and that its directors knew it did not,
and that they knew it operated injuriously on Catholics. Under this
state of the case they were to set their grievances before the commu-
nity— the grievance of being obliged to contribute to the support
of a system from which they could derive no benefit, but which was
perverted as an instrument to destroy their religion in the minds of
the children under the pretence of excluding sectarianism. But now,
to convince them that the exclusion of sectarianism was impossible —
did not those directors each belong to some sect ? Did not the gen-
tlemen putting the books into the hands of the children belong to
some sect? He came to this point that they either belonged to some
sect or acted on the principles of deism ; and, though this system
had now no name under a religious head, it was either deism or sec-
tarianism. If it were said that it was not sectarianism, he wanted to
know what was Christianity ; for if they excluded all sects, they ex-
cluded all Christianity. Where are the Christians ? Take away Ca-
tholics, and Baptists, and Methodists, and Presbyterians and some
others — and they were all sects — take away all the sects, and they
had no more Christianity in the land. N"or could they exclude secta-
rianism? And if they did, what remained but deism? There was
no alternative. It was as plain as that two and two are four. And
did they suppose that this community which belonged to one^or the
other sect would subscribe to a system which in its essence was anti-
Christian? Exclude sectarianism! and in a country, too, which
THE SCHOOL QUESTIGIT. 51
prides itself on its Christiatiity ! He should like to know, then, what
sect would receive the greatest benefit from this system? why, the
sect that excluded sectarianisni — the " Common School Sect," for it
ought to have a name. [Laughter.] Now let them examine for a
moment the school-books used nnder this system, a couple of which
had fallen into his hands, and ttiey had here a reading lesson on the
" Character of Martin Luther." Now, no doubt Martin Luther had a
character — [laughter] — but people draAV it very differently. Here it
was drawn by one of his admirers — Catholics, thanks to the education
which they gave him, may think highly of his talents, but they have
not much admiration of his virtues — here was a chapter on his char-
a,cter drawn by Dr. Robertson, a Presbyterian ! But would Catho-
lics wishing to educate their children put Dr. Robertson's character
of him into their hands ? Here he was made out one of the greatest
men that ever lived. [Laughter.] But let that pass. Next they
had a chapter on the '■'■Execulinii of Cranmer^Archhislio-p of Canterbury. "
And was that by a Roman Catholic ? Oh no ; they would not trust
a lesson by a Roman Catholic into the school ; but they introduced
this chapter written by Hume, the historian whose veracity they all
could appreciate. [Laughter.] Another chapter was entitled the
^'■Character of the Great Founder of Christianity." What a name! The,
Great Founder of Christianity ! instead of saying our Lord Jesus
Christ. And who is this from ? Dr. Beattie, a Scotch Presbyterian !
But did they want their children to be taught by him? The next
chapter was entitled "27ie Spirit and Laws of Christianity superior
to those of any other religion." And this was a lesson for children !
And who was this from? Dr. Beattie again. Now might they
not as well seclect lessons for children from the life of Sir Thomas
Moore, the Lord Chancellor of England, who gave his head to
the block rather than sacrifice his religion ; or from those glorious
.nnnals of patriotism which show how Catholic bishops and barons
wrung from a king that charter which was now perverted against
them. [Applause.] But Catholics did not want their children to be
educated by the conductors of this Common School System, whose
intentions might possibly be good, though Catholics believed them
to be mistaken, at least. The anxiety betrayed to get Catholics to
these schools, was proof in, itself that there was something in the sys-
tem that Catholics could not agree to. Need he go further ? If it
were necessary he could appeal to that Church and to others for proofs
of the sacrifices they (the Catholics) had made for the preparation
of a place for the education of their children free from the poisonous
infection of those Common Schools. What induced them to provide
some shelter like this, in which they were now assembled for the pro-
tection of their children, but that they deemed it a blessing to give
good instruction to their children instead of thajt poison which would
pervert their minds from the faith which they reverenced, and which
they had received from their fathers ?
But here was another book entitled, " Lessons for Schools, taken
from the Holy Scriptures, in the Words of the Text, without Note or
52 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
Comment." But when did Catholics allow the Scriptures to he given
to children that they might he learnt, "Without Note or Comment
admitting even that these were the true Scriptures? and he asked if
this was not a direct interference with the religion of Catholics and
if so, why should they tolerate it if they had the power to obtain re-
dress, or even to appeal against it. !f he had access to the libraries
of these Common Schools he should find them stuffed full of books
that were obnoxious to Cathohcs and to their feehngs ; but, as these
books were now being called in, it was very difficult to get tnem,
though not long since any child might have them gratis, and he
Bhould therefore call their attention to a quotation from a recent
publication on these books by a writer who was well acquamted
with the subject :
" In each of the PubUe Schools there is estabUshed a library to which the more
advanced scholars have access— and what do we find there? ' Martin Luther and
' An Irish Heart.' The latter is addressed to the ' Irish Protestant Association ot
the city of Boston."
'Not to Boston alone, but to its essence and spirit — the
" 'Protestant Association' of the city of Boston, and is a libefnpon the Catholics,
and an insult to the Irish. From the preface I extract the following : ' The emi-
gration from Ireland to America, of annually increasing numbers, extremely needy,
and in many cases drunken and depraved, has become a subject for grave and fear-
ful reflection. Should this influx continue for a few years more, in the same ratio
of increase which has existed for a few years past ; should this imposing subject^
continue to be thought unworthy of legislative provision, and should the materials'
of this oppressive influx continue to be the same, instead of an asylum our country
might be appropriately styled the common sewer of Ireland.' From page_ 24 I
copy the following verbatim : ' As for old Phelim Maghee, be was of no particular
religion.' "
Well, then he belonged to this Common School System, said
the Bishop. [Laughter.]
" ' "When Phelim had laid up a good stock of sins, he now and then went over to
KiBarney, <?f a Sabbath morning, and got relaaf by confissing them out o' the way,
as he used to express it, and sealed his soul up with a wafer, and returned quite
invigorated for the perpetration of new offences.' " '
There is a lesson for your children in a school system which pro-
fesses the exclusion of all sectarianism !
Again, on page 120, when speaking of intemperance, we find the
following :
" ' It is more probably, however, a part of the papal system.' "
Father Mathew, for instance.
" ' For, when drunkenness shall have been done away, and with it that just, re-
lative proportion of all indolence, ignorance, crime, misery, and superstition, of
•which it is the putative jiarent, then, truly, a much smaller portion of mankind
may bo expected to follow the dark lantern of the Eomish religion.' "
And we read this while we see Father Mathew going abroad, and
hundreds of Protestants joining Father Mathew. He spoke of this
as one of the books of learning which were unfit to be introduced
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. &3,
int.0 schools fi'om which all sectarianism was professed, to be ex-
cluded. But it goes on :
*" ' That religion is most likely to find professors among the frivolous and the
■wicked, which by a species of ecclesiastical legerdemain can persuade the sinner
that he is going to heaven when he is going directly to l)ell. By a refined and
complicated system of Jesuitry and prelatical juggling ' " —
That, I suppose, is a hint for me —
" ' the papal see has obtained its present extensive influence through the world.' "
Now he would leave it to themselves whether that system, which
professed to exclude all sectarianism, and yet adopted books like
these, would stand the test of examination before an enlightened
community ; he wished to know how any gentleman could stand up
before the Common Council and say that in it there was no secta-
rianism ; he wanted to know how these books could be defended ,
and he wished to know on what ground any gentleman who re-
ported on the part of the Common Council could have justified
the refusal of the claims of Catholics, with such truths as these
before him.
But, passing from this state of the case, he would call their atten-
tion to the disadvantages under which Catholics labored by the
operation of this system. And first, though not the greatest, yet
what in a country like this must be deemed unconstitutional, was
taxation for the support of a system by which they were not ben-
efited. It was a great grievance to take the money of Catholics for
that from Avhich no benefit was realized. But the next objection
was, its inequality. They found a system supported by the commu-
nity in general which gave instruction to the children of their
neighbor^ who knew not or cared not how it operated on the reli-
gious training of his child ; while the Catholic who did care for the
interests of his child's religious principles could not, for that reason,
conscientiously partake of its advantages. But its inequality was
equaled by its injustice: for why were they taxed for siuch a sys-
tem, when that system is so perverted as to make it their duty to
relinquish its benefits, rather than sacrifice that which was of greater
importance. The next fact was, the operation of this system on
their children ; and he asked them to judge for themselves, from the
specimens they have had, what must be the inevitable effect on their
children. But this was not all ; for after submitting to taxation for
this system, they were obliged to tax themselves anew, as well as
their means would permit, to give their children an education that
would not compromise their religious faith. Now, if he had an oppor-
tunity to address the gentlemen more intimately mixed up with the
Common School System, he would desire them to bring their better
feelings to contemplate the scene in this place when the children of
the poor came there, and not only the children but their teachers,
who were willing to sacrifice health and hfe that they might impart
instruction to their minds ; he would bring them here and ask them
to look upon the spectacle ; he would ask them, also, if it were just
54 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
that 'they should be deprived of the benefit of an education which
the money of their parents contributed to provide ; he would ask
them if it were just that these children should come here with ba»e
feet, during inclement weather— and why bare feet? because the
money had been expended in books, which should have purchased
them shoes. The Legislature did not intend that they should be
thus excluded from the benefits of this system ; nor yet that the
children of the poor emigrant should not participate in it, for they
are poor, and for the poor in an especial manner was it intended,
that they might become good citizens. They, then, were the victims
of a system which was so perverted that they could not, without
sacrificing their consciences, send their children to participate in its
benefits, for which they had, in common Avith other citizens, sub-
scribed the funds.
Now, with this outline of the case, which he should be glad to
see in print and sent abroad to justify their course, he came to the
remedy ; for he did not suppose they would present themselves to
the constituted authorities and demand this money, unless they could
show it was right. They did not ask a favor ; but, according to
sound judgment, & public right, to which they were entitled. Nor
was it expedient that those in power should grant that which the
Catholics demanded, until they had shown them some good and
sound reason, and its justice and propriety ; and, therefore, he was
glad that their grievances were laid before the whole land and were
not confined to that room. They must seize the public attention,
and if their just claim was still denied, then let it be branded on the
flag of America that Catholics were denied and deprived of equal
rights. [Applause.] It appeared, from the history of their pro-
ceedings before his arrival, that difficulties had been thrown in their
way most inexpediently, most injudiciously, and he might use a
harsher expression still in respect to the sentiments put forth in
relation to their agitation against the abominable system which ex-
cludes all. Christianity, but does no good. That anybody calling
himself a Catholic could have used such language was indeed sur-
prising; and they could only suppose that such an individual. did
not know his religion or what this Common School System was.
But let that pass. There had been another diflSoulty — that those to
whom the law entrusted the disposition of this money were not the
persons by whom it was originally recommended. It might happen,
in some cases, that those not in power should be ready to recom-
mend a measure with the hope that they might embarrass others.
Now, in matters of this kind, reflecting men would not regret a
benefit because those recommended it who were not usually of their
own way of thinking. It reminded him of a man who should be
without his breakfast till about eleven o'clock, and is then recom-
mended by his enemy to take it ; but, says another, " You know I
have ever been your friend, while he has been your enemy, and I
recommend you to wait." After listening to both advisers, the man
says : " In the first place, have I the right to my breakfast ? If so,
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 55
it is no matter who recommends it. It is not because this man or
that man recommends it, but because I have the right to it, that I
will take it. In addition, it is near twelve o'clock, and I feel hun-
gry ; and no doubt, after taking it, I shall feel better. Indepen-
dently, then, of your advice. — and you both wish me well — I have
reasons of my own for eating my breakfast, with which I hope you
will be satisfied." And so it was on this Common School Question.
It was very silly to bring such reasons here as had been stated, and
he hoped they were now excluded.
He feared he was taxing their patience and employing the time
that would be more usefully employed by others, and therefore he
would conclude with the remark, that they must bear in mind they
were not to accomplish this work in a day. They would have to
speak to those by whom they expected justice to be done them ;
they would have to difiuse light, for there were in the country
public men of high honor and good feeling of all parties — men who
really wished to be just ; and if others were mere trading politi-
cians, he hoped- they would be mindful of that old adage, which
was as true here as elsewhere, " Honesty is the best policy ;" and
if they wanted_to be successful politicians, their course was to be
honest politicians. He was aware that even where politicians were
not honest, from Maine to Georgia, their policy was to appear so :
but there were men independent of this class that were men of gen-
erous minds and pure motives, who sympathized with the people
and were watchful of the interests of the country, and who would
grant the justice to which Catholics were entitled, and drive out
from this system that sectarianism which its professed friends say
does not exist in it. In order, then, to proceed in the way which
cases of the kind require, he would suggest the adoption of the fol-
lowing preamble and resolutions :
Whereas, The wisdom and liberality of the Legislature of this State
did provide, at the public expense, for the education of the poor
children of the State, without injury or detriment to the civil and
religious rights vested in their parents or guardians by the laws of
nature and of the land : And, whereas, Catholics contribute and have
always contributed their proportion to the funds from which that
system is supported : And, whereas, the administration of that system,
as now conducted, is such that the parents or guardians of Catholic
children cannot allow them to frequent such schools without doing
violence to those rights of conscience which the Constitution secures
equal and inviolable to all citizens, viz. : They cannot allow their
children to be brought up under a system which proposes to shut
the door against Christianity, under the pretext of excluding secta-
rianism, and which yet has not the merit of being true to its bad
promise : And, whereas, CathoUcs who are the least wealthy and
most in need of the education intended by the bounty of the State,
are thus cut off from the benefit of funds to which they are obliged
to contribute, and constrained either to contribute new funds for
the purposes of education among themselves, or else to see their
0& AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
children brought up under a system of free-thinking and practical
irreligion, or else see them left to that ignorance which they dread,
and which it was the benevolent and wise intention of the Legisla-
ture to remove. Therefore,
1. Resolved, That the operation of the Common Schoolbystem, as
the same is now administered, is a violation of our civil and reli-
gious rights. ' T -■• ■
2. Hr.mhed, That we should not be worthy of our proud distinc-
tion as Americans and American citizens, if we did not resist such
invasion by every lawful means in our power.
3. Hesohed, That in seeking the redress of our grievances, we
have confidence in our rulers, more especially as by granting that
redress they will but carry out the principles of the Constitution,
which secures equal civil and religious rights to all.
4. Mesolved, That a committee of eight be appointed to prepare
and report an address to the Catholic community and the public at
large, on the injustice which is done to the Catholics, in their civil
and religious rights by the present operation of the Common School
System.
5. Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to prepare
a report on the public moneys which h.ave been expended by the
bounty of this State for education, both in Colleges and in Common
Schools, to which Catholics have contributed their proportion of
taxes like other citizens, but from which they have never received
any benefit.
The resolutions having been unanimously adopted collectively,
the committees designated in the resolutions were then appointed
by the chairman, as follows : Rt. Kev. Bishop Hughes, James W.
McKeon, Thomas O'Connor, Dr. Sweeney, James W. White, James
Kelley, Gregory Dillon, B. O'Connor, John SIcLoughlin : C. F.
Grim, James "W. McKeon.
ADDRESS
OF THE CATHOLICS TO THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE
CITY AND STATE OF NEW YORK.
Speech of Right Rev. Bishop Hughes.
A GESTEEAL meeting of the Catholics of New York was held in
the basement of St. James' Church, James street, on Monday,
August 10, 1840, on the subject of Common School Education, and
the claim of the Catholics to a portion of the Common School Fund.
The meeting was very numerously attended. Thomas O'Connor,
Esq., was again called to the chair, and the secretaries of the pre<
vious meetings were also re-elected.
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 51
The Right Reverend Bishop Hughes, having entered tlie room
nccompanied by a numerous body of the clergy, was received with
enthusiastic plaudits. He then, as the chairman of the committee
appointed by the last meeting to prepare an address to the public
on the subject ■which those UK^etings were convened to discuss, came
forward and said, the object they had in view, in drafting and
adopting a report, was that the public at large might be informed
of the nature of their pretensions, and of the grie\ances of which
they comjDlained, in order that if there were in the public a sympa-
thetic response to their cry for justice, it might come forth. For
himself he had but little doubt of the issue, for he had great con-
fidence in the public justice. And whatever m.ight be the conduct
of the editors of the daily journals, and of others who were but ob-
scurely informed, or who but darkly understood the nature of their
position, he still hoped that when they comprehended thoroughly
the ground on which Catholics stood, they would not persevere in
the course of w^hich their venerable chairman so justly complained.
[Applause.] With the permission of the meeting, he would then
read the draft of the report which was about to be submitted to
them. The Right Reverend Prelate then read the following address,
which was received with responsive cheers throughout :
ADDRESS
Of the Soman Catholics, to their Fellow Citizens of the City and State
of New York.
Fellow Citizens :
We, the Roman Catholics of the City of N'ew York, feeling that
both our civil and religious rights are abridged and injuriously
affected by the operation of the Common School System, and by
the construction which the Common Council have lately put on the
laws authorizing that system, beg leave to state our grievances, with
the deepest confidence in the justice of the American character;
that if our complaints are well founded, you will assist us in obtain-
ing the redress to which we are entitled — if they are not well
founded, Ave are ready to abandon them.
' We are Americans and American cjtiiens. If some of us are
foreigners, it is only by the accident of birth. As citizens, our am-
bition is to be Americans — and if we cannot be so by birth, we are
so by choice and preference, which we deem an equal evidence of
our affection and attachment to the Laws and Constitution of the
country. But our children, for whose rights as well as our own we
contend in this matter, are Americans by nativity. So that we are
either, like yourselves, natives of the soil, or, like your fathers from
the Eastern world, have become Americans under the sanction of
the Constitution, by the birthright of selection and prefei'ence.
We hold, therefore, the same idea of our rights that you hold of
58 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
yours. We wish not to diminish yours, but only to secure and
enjoy our own. Neither have we the slightest suspicion that you
would wish us to be deprived of any privilege, which you claim for
yourselves. If then we have suffered by tlie operation of the
Common School System in the City, of New York, it is to be im-
puted rather to our own supineness, than to any wish on your part
that we should be aggrieved.
The intention of the Legislature of this State in appropriating
public funds for the purposes of popular schools, must have been
(whatever construction the lawyers of the Common Council put upon
it) to diffuse the blessings of education among the people, without
encroachment on the civil and religious rights of the citizens. It
was, it must have been, to have implanted in the minds of youth,
principles of knowledge and virtue, which would secure to the State
a future population of enlightened and virtuous, int'tead of ignorant
and vicious members.
This was certainly their general intention, and no other would
have justified their bountiful appropriation of the public funds. But
in carrying out the measure, this patriotic and wise intention has
been lost sight of; and in the City of New York, at least, under the
late arbitrary determination of the present Common Council, such
intention of the legislature is not only disregarded, but the high
public ends to which it was directed, are manifestly being defeated.
Here knowledge, according to the late decision, mere secular knowl-
edge, is what we are to understand by education, in the sense of the
legislature of New York. And if you should allow the snaallest ray
of religion to enter the school-room ; if you should teach the chil-
dren that there is an eye that sees every wicked thought, that there
is a God, a state of rewards and punishment beyond this life ; then,
according to the decision of the Common Council, you forfeit all
claim to the bounty of the State, although your scholars should have
become as learned as Newton, or wise as Socrates. Is then, we
would ask you, fellow citizens, a practical rejection of the Christian
religion in all its forms, and without the substitution of any other,
the basis on which you would form the principles and character of
the future citizens of this great Commonwealth ? Are the meek
lessons of religion and virtue, which pass from the mother's lips into
the heart of her child, to be chilled and frozen by icy contact with
a system of education thus interpreted ?
Is enlightened villainy so precious in the public eye, that science
is to be cultivated whilst virtue is neglected, and religion, its only
adequate groundwork, is formally and authoritatively proscribed ?
Is it your wish that vice should thus be elevated from its low and
natural companionship with ignorance, and be married to knowledge
imparted at the pubhc expense ?
We do not say that even the Common Council profess to require
that the Christian religion should be excluded from the Common
Schools. They only contend that the inculcation of each or any of
its doctrines would be sectarianism, and thus lest sectai-ianisia
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 59
should be admitted Christianity is substantially excluded. Chris-
tianity in this country is made up of the different creeds of tlie vari-
ous denominations, and siiico all these creeds are proscribed, the
Christian rehgion necessarily is banished from the hall of public edu-
cation.
The objections ■which we have thus far stated, fellow citizens,
ought to appear to you, in our opinion, as strong to you as they do
to us. For though we may differ in our definition of the religion
of Christ, still we all generally profess to believe, to revere it, as the
foundation of moral virtue and of social happiness. Now we know
of no fixed principle of infidelity, except in the negation of the
Christian religion ? The adherents of this principle may differ in
other points of skejDticism, but in rejecting Christianity they are
united. Their confession of faith is a belief in the negative of Chris-
tianity— but they reject it in toto — whilst the Common School rejects
Jt5 only in all its several parts, under the name of Sectarianism.
It is manifest, therefore, that the Public School System of the
City of IsTeW York, is entirely favorable to the sectarianism of infi-
delity, and opposed only to that of positive Christianity. And is it
your wish, fellow citizens, is it your wish more than ours, that infi-
\delity should have a predominancy and advantages, in the public
Ischools, which are denied to Christianity ? Is it your wish that your
children should be brought up under a system of education so
called, which shall detach theo from the Christian belief which you
profess, whatever it may be — and prepare them for initiation into
the mysteries of Fanny Wrightism, or any other scheme of infidelity
which may come in their way? Are you willing that your chil-
dren, educated at your expense, shall be educated on a principle
antagonist to the Christian religion ? that you shall have the toil and
labor of cultivating the ground, and sowing the seed, in order that
infidelity may reap the harvest.
With us it is matter of surprise that conscientious persons of all
Christian denominations have not been struck with this bad feature
of the system as understood by the Common Council. A new sec-
tarianism antagonist to all Christian sects has been generated in, not
the common schools, as the State originally understood the term, but
in the ^j7.(J/!c schools of the Public School Society ; this new secta-
rianism is adopted by the Common Council of the City, and is sup-
ported, to the exclusion of all others, at the public expense. Have
the conscientious Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Luthera''
and others, no scruples of conscience at seeing their children
the children of their poor brought up undei- this new sectarip
It is not for us to say, but for ourselves we can speak. And at
not be parties to such a system, except by legal compulsio.
against conscience. i ""--
Let us not be mistaken. We do not deny to infidels for uuJDelief
any rights to which any other citizen is entitled.
But we hold that the Common School System as it has been lately
interpreted by the Common Council of the City, necessarily trans-
62 AECHEISHOP HUGHES.
York convinced us that we could not discharge our conscitmtions
duty to oui- offspring, if we allowed them to be brought up under
the influence of the irreligious principles on which those scliools are
conducted, and to some of which we have already alluded. But
besides these, there were other grounds of distrust and danger
which soon forced on us the conclusion that the benefits of pubUc
education were not for us. Besides the introduction of the Holy
Scriptures without note or comment, with the prevailing theory that
from these even children are to get their notions of religion, contrary
to our principles, there were in the class books of those schools fafte
(as we believe) historical statements respecting the men and things
of past times calculated to fill the minds of our children with errors
of fact, and at the same time to excite in them prejudice against the
religion of their parents and guardians. These passages were not
considered as sectarian, inasmuch as they had been selected as mere
reading lessons, and were not in, favor of any particular sect, but
merely against the Catholics. .We feel it is unjust that such pas-
sages should be taught at all in schools, to the support of which we
I are contributors as well as others. But that such books should be
put into the hands of our own children, and that in part at our own
expense, was in our opinion unjust, unnatural, and at all events to
us intolerable. Accordingly, through veiy great additional sacri-
fices, we have been obliged to provide schools, under our churches
and elsewhere, in which to educate our children as our conscientious
duty required.' This we have done to the number of some thousands
for several years past, during all of which time we have been obliged
to pay taxes ; and we feel it unjust and oppressive that whilst we
educate our children, as well we contend as they would be at the
public schools, we are denied our portion of the school fund, simply
because we at the same time endeavor to train them up in principles
of virtue and religion. This we feel to be unjust and unequal. For
we pay taxes in proportion to our numbers, as other citizens. We
arc supposed to be from one hundred and fifty to two hundred
thousand in the State.
And although most of us are poor, still the poorest man amongst
us is obliged to pay taxes, from the sweat of his brow, in the rent
of his room or little tenement. Is it not then hard and unjust that
such a man cannot have the benefit of education for his child with-
out sacrificing the rights of his religion and conscience ? He sends
his child to a school under the protection of his Church, in which
these rights will be secure. But he has. to support this school also.
In Ireland he was compelled to support a church hostile to his re-
ligion, and here he is compelled to support schools in which his
religion fares but little better, and to support his own school be-
sides.
Is this state of things, fellow-citizens, and especially Americans
is this state of things worthy oi xjou, worthy of our country, worthy
of our just and glorious constitution? Put yourself in the poor
man's place, and say whether you -would not despise him if he did
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 63
not labor by every lawful mfeans to emancipate himself from lliis
bondage. He has to pay double taxation for the education of his
'child,_one to the misinterpreted law of the land, and another to his
conscience. He sees his child going to school with perhaps only the
fragment of a worn-out book, thinly clad, and its bare feet on the
frozen pavement ; whereas, if he had his rights he could improve
the clothing, he could get better books, and have his child better
taught than it is possible in actual circumstances.
Nothing can be more false than some statements of our motives,
which have been put forth against us.
It has been asserted that we seek our share of the school funds
for the support and advance of our religion.
We beg to assure you with respect that we would scorn to sup-
port or advance our religion at any other than our own expense.
But we are unwilling to pay taxes for the purpose of destroying our
religion in the minds of our children. This points out the sole
difference between what we seek and what some narrow-minded or
misinformed journals have accused us of seeking.
If the public schools could have been constituted on a principle
which would have secured a perfect neutrality of influence on the
subject of religion, then we should have no reason to complain. But
this has not been done, and we respectfully submit that it is impos-
sible. The cold indifference with which it is required that all relig-
ion shall be treated in those schools — the Scriptures without note or
comment — the selection of passages, as reading lessons, from Prot-
estants and prejudiced authors, on points in which our creed is sup-
posed to be involved — the comments of the teacher, of which the
Commissioners cannot be cognizant — the school libraries, stuffed
with sectarian works against us — form against our religion a combi-
nation of influences prejudicial to our religion, and to whose action
it would be criminal in us to expose our children at such an age.
Such, fellow- citizens, is a statement of the reasons of our opposi-
tion to the public schools, and the unjust and unequal grievances of
which we complain.
You can judge of our rights by your own. You cannot be ex-
pected to know our religion ; many of you have, no doubt, strong
prejudices against it, which we are fain to ascribe precisely to the
circumstance of your not having had an opportunity to know it.
But notwithstanding your prejudices, and your disapproval of our
faith, we have confidence in your high principles of justice, under
the sanction of our common constitution, which secures equal re-
ligious and civil rights to all. Put yourselves in our situation, and
say whether it is just, or equal, or constitutional, that whereas we
are contributors to the public fund, we shall be excluded from our
share of benefit in their expenditure, unless wo submit to the arbi-
trary and irreligious conditions of the Common Council, and thereby
violate our rights of conscience ?
Our religion is dear to us ; for in the hearts of many of us it is
connected with the history of our fathers' sufferings, and our own.
64 AECHBISHOP HTJGHES.
Education is dear to us, for the tyrants who wished to enslave our
ancestors and us, made it felony for the schoolmaster to come among
us, unless he were the avowed enemy of our creed.
We seek for nothing but what we conceive to be our nghts,_and
which can be granted without violating or abridging the prmciples
of any other denomination or individual bi-eathing. They may be
refused as they have been. If they should, neithershall we yet suf-
fer our children to receive the anti-religious education of the public
schools, nor shall we kiss the hand that fixes a blot on the Constitu-
tion by oppressively denying our just claims.
What do we contend for ? Simply that our children shall be
educated apart from these influences. We contend eoe liberty
OF conscience and FEEEDOir OE EDUCATION. We hold that the
laws of nature, of religion, and the very Constitution of the coun-
try, secure to parents the right of superintending the education of
their own children.
This right we contend for, but we have hitherto been obliged to
exercise it under the unjust disadvantages of double taxation. If
the State, considering our children as its own, grants -money for their
education, are we not entitled to our portion of it, when we perform
the services which are required.
It appears not, according to the decisions of the Common Council,
unless we send our children to schools in which our religious rights
are to be violated, and our offspring qualified to pass over to the
thickening ranks of infidelity. This shall not be ; much as we dread
ignorance, "we dread this much more.
If justice were done us, we could increase the number of our
teachers to a proportion corresponding with the number of children.
We could improve our means of teaching; we could bring our
children out of the damp basements of our Churches into the pure
air of better localities. In a word, give us our just proportion of
the Common School Fund, and if we do not give as good an educa-
tion, apart from religious insiruction, as is given in the public schools,
to one third a larger number of children for the same money, we are
willing to renounce our just claim. Let the proper authorities ap-
point any test of improvement that shall be general, and we shall
abide by it. Neither do we desire that any children shall attend
our schools, except those of our own communion ; although so far
as we are concerned they shall be open to all.
t\ In a country like this it is the interest of all to protect the guar-
anteed rights o^ each. Should the professors of some weak or un-
popular religion be oppressed to-day, the experiment may be repeated
En-morrow on some other. Every successful attempt in that way
-will embolden the spirit of encroachment, and diminish the power
of resistance ; and in such an event the monopolizers of education,
after having discharged the office of public tutor, may find it con-
venient 1o assume that of public preacher. The transition will not
be found difficult or unnatural from the idea of a common school, to
that of a common religion, froKi which, of course, in order to make
THE SCHOOL QtESTION. 65
it populai', all_ Christian sectarianism will be carefully excluded.
Resist the begipnings, is a wise maxim in the preservation of rights.
Should the American people ever stand by and tolerate the open
and authoritative violation of their Magna Charta, then the Republic
will have seen the end of its days of glory.
The friends of liberty throughout the civilized world will fold their
hands in grief and despair. The tyrants of the earth will point to
the flag which your fathers planted, and cry, Ha ! ha ! The nations
from afar will gaze upon it, and behold with astonishment its bright
stars faded and its stripes turned into scorpions.
After reading the address, the Right Rev. Prelate said, as he had
had some connection with the drawing up of the address, it might
be proper that he should mention some of the circumstances au^
thorizing the language adopted in it. An idea appeared to prevail
that because the schools to which a desire was manifested to compel
them, as it were, to send their children, were called " public schools,"
they belonged to everybody. Now they spoke of a " public square "
as of something that was public ; and, in ordinary phraseology,
" public schools " would be schools belonging to the State ; but, if
they conceived that idea of the public schools in question, they
were mistaken. What belonged to the State belonged to the people
of the State, and what belonged to the city belonged to the people
of the city ; but here these schools belonged to a private incorpo-
rated Society, and from the commencement they had changed their
character as much as it was possible for them to change. For what
purpose does the first charter of this incorporated Public School
Society purport to have been given ? They had read the language
of the report drawn up by the Common Council, in which it was
stated that anything sectarian or religious in the instruction given
in a school was a disqualification, and cut off that school from all
participation in the Common School Fund ; but this was not the lan-
guage of the charter by which the Public School Society was incor-
porated ; for in that it was recited that it was given for the educa-
tion of children belonging to no known denomination, and for im-
planting in their minds the principles oi religion and morality. There
was no dread of sectarianism then. From that time this Public
School Society, thus incorporated, passed on, step by step, enlarging
their powers, and becoming favorites with the State and City author-
ities, until this private incorporation took charge of the children —
not of no known denomination, that they might be taught religion
and morality, but of all classes, and upon a principle that operated
to exclude religion altogether. It was not then without authority
that the language of the address was so strong on this matter. The
Common Council held the doctrine that the schools to be common-
schools, should be open to all, and that those branches of education,
and those only, should be taught which tend to fit youth for the
ordinary occupations of life. They strip it of all religion, because
religion has reference to a future state ; and to make the system
5
66 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
common, they profess to provide for the education of Mohammed-
ans and Jews, without violating religious belief. Well, but Cath
olios, as has been repeatedly and abundantly shown, could not send
their children to those schools without violating their religious be-
lief, and he thought they ought to have the privilege that was so
bountifully provided for the Mohammedan. [Applause.] _ But not-
withstanding the professions made, this system, sofuU is it of incon-
sistency as well as mischief, did not exclude religious teaching, for
the Scriptures were read, and that was one form of religion, and
many people thought it suflScient for all purposes. But all the
teaching the State had in view, according to the construction of the
Common Council, was confined to what would make man useful in
this life ; that is, make him an intellectual and mechanical machine.
Now he did not understand that a man would not be equally well
qualified to become a good mechanic, if he understood the Christian
religion, or that to blend religion with his secular knowledge would
disqualify him for usefulness in this life. [Applause.] Oh! but
only get him to read Mr. Hume's chapter, entitled the " Execution of
Cranmer," Dr. Robertson's " Character of Martin Luther,^'' the little
innocent story of " Phelim Maghee," and the " Irish Heart," and
then he would make an excellent mechanic. [Laughter.] He had
made these few observations merely to show that these schools did
not belong to the public, in the common sense of the term, but to
a private corporation which had received a vast deal of the public
money, and still continued to receive it, while they who contributed
that money were deprived of the benefits which the State intended
it should confer, and -they, in consequence, were obliged again to
contribute to the education of their children in another form.
[Great applause. [
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes counseled them, while they
joined to obtain their just demands in reference to this Common
School System, to be good citizens in all the relations of life, and to
be kind and charitable in the world, and thereby throw suspicion
on the minds of even their enemies of the truth of the ridiculous and
absurd tales told of them in the books which were now read in the
Public Schools; but in the mean time let them withdraw their
children from their bad influence. [Great applause.]
Meeting in the Basement of St. James' Church, August
24, 1840.
Pursuant to adjournment, another crowded meeting of Catholics
was held m the basement of St. James' Church, James street, on
the evemng of Monday, August 24, on the subject of their claim to
a portion of the Common School Fund for the education of their
children, Mr. Gregory Dillon was called to the chair and the
THK SCHOOL QUESTION. 6^
secretaries of previous meetings -were re-elected. The minutes of
the last meeting having been read and approved,
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes came forward to address the
meeting, and was most enthusiastically received. He commenced
by observing that it might not be unadvisable to remind the meet-
ing, which consisted of persons deeply interested in the question
before them, of the true principles which the question involved, of
the extent to which their claim reached, and of the limit by which it
was and ought to be bounded, for they appeared to be peculiarly
imfortunate in making themselves understood when they come be-
fore the public to vindicate even one of the simplest rights belong-
ing to the citizens of this country ; they were peculiarly unfortunate
in having their motives misrepresented and their intentions not
charitably construed. This, however, was greatly less the case at
the present time than heretofore ; nevertheless, even now there had
been published in newspapers of this city, statements of circum-
stances in regard to their proceedings which had never occurred, to
his knowledge, and to which the meeting would also find themselves
strangers. [Applausef.] Certainly, they were not of much import-
ance ; but as there was much credulity abroad, and as everything
which went forth to their disparagement from their opponents could
not be contradicted in writing, for which few of them could find the
time, it became necessary, on an occasion like the present, to avail
themselves of the opportunity to give utterance to their disavowal.
[Applause.]
In the Journal of Commerce of that morning there was a writer
■who acknowledged himself to be a teacher in a public school, and
that gentleman appeared to be highly offended with them for lan-
guage and proceedings which he attributed to them in the progress
of that work. Now many of those then present had heard him (the
Right Rev. Prelate) and others speak there from the first hour to
the present, and they had not heard one uncharitable, one unkind,
one disrespectful word respecting the character or the moti^■es of
any person connected with the Common School System. They had
made and did make a broad distinction between the system of
Common School education, in connection with its necessary results,
and the private characters of the parties who administered it, and
the standing of those who were its special protectors. This gentle-
man said that they (the Catholics) say in amount that the persons
connected jyith the Common School System are all infidels. But
who over said such a thing ? Did they ever say that infidelity was
taught in those schools ? Never ; but they did say that the con-
ductors of the Comii^on Schools profess to exclude everything secta-
rian, and that this they could not do if they would ; and should not,
if they could ; for if they did, there would be the absence of every-
thing like Christianity, and there would consequently be nothing
remaining but what they (the Catholics) call infideUty. Those
schools would teach children the mathematics, but not a word about
God; and what would that be but practical infidelity? What
68 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
would be ttuir creed but that wMch inows not God? Now this
they believed would be the result of the system, though not the
intention of its managers. They (the Catholics) would respect their
intentions, though they knew them not ; and they therefore could
only meet them on the ground which they had themselves chosen to
occupy, judge of them by their own professions and by the docu-
ments which they had given to the world, and on a comparison with
the results which were unavoidable ; then say whether the Public
School System, if it could have any influence, was not hostile to
Christianity, and, consequently, infidel. [Applause.] He did not
pretend to say that this was intended, but that it would be the re-
sult. He did not say that the boys, because they attended those
schools, would necessarily become infidels ; but if not, no thanks to
that school system, but to the teaching of the parents at home ; to
the knowledge, and piety and anxious solicitude of parents, and to
their pastors too [applause]— for which the system was entitled to
no credit. [Renewed applause.]
But there were other remarks made by the Churchman. Now
that was the paper of a very respectable denomination — the Epis-
copal— and it did not quarrel with the arguments ; it did not dis-
pute the grounds on which their claim was based, but, half sidling
for and half sidling against them, it concluded by observing that
it was not so much surprised at the nature of the claim itself as at
the boldness with which it was put forward. [Laughter.] He should
like to know if, in this country, this Churchman would like to see,
or expected, that they would creep when they came to demand a
right ; or whether in a country and under a Constitution which
treated all men as equal, and respected all men alike, they should
not stand straight vp and say what they wanted — ^their claim being
couched in respectful language, which should not entitle it to the
charge of " boldness." [Applause.] But there had been nothing in
their proceedings to justify the charge of boldness ; there had been
no presumption ; and this the Churchman ought to know. In the
United States, Catholics are not obliged to recognize " Canterbury
high. Sir." [Great applause.]
Having made these remarks, he would call the attention of the
meeting to another subject. When the application was made to
the Common Council, it appeared by the case, as submitted to the
public, that the Common Council sat as jurors, that the Catholics
appeared as opposed to the Common School Society, and stated that
they could not in their consciences send their children to these
schools, and that advocates, as representatives of the Public School
Society, appeared to oppose them, and determined that Catholics
could in their consciences send their children to them. Now he (the
Bishop) understood that, in this country, one man had not the right
to say what, in conscience, anbther man could do ; and if he did so,
that it was an assumption of a prerogative that was not his. Those
advocates, too, set forth a statement iu contradiction of those made
by the Catholics, and of some which they had not advanced, in
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 69
wliieh they asserted that there was nothing in their books which
Catliolios might not permit their children to read, that there was
nothing in them hostile to the Catholic religion, nor anything that
could prejudice against it the minds of Catholic children. Yet had
they not heard chapter after chapter, and page after page, which
they would not allow their children to read ? Had they not heard
the chapter by Mr. Hume, on the Execution of Cranmer ; and the
Character of Martin Litther, by Dr. Robertson ; and other chapters
from Presbyterian clergymen ; and on subjects too which deeply
involved their religious faith, and which they could not conscien-
tiously and religiously allow their children to read ? [Applause.] ,
Now, with their permission, he would draw their attention to some
passages in the report of the committee of the Common Council ; he
would merely allude to .some few principal points, for it was too
long to be read at length. They set forth that Catholics made such
and such objections to the existing system, and that they were con-
tradicted by the Superintendents of the Public Schools ; and then
they came to what they regarded as the vital part of the question.
They say as follows: "The questions to which the committee have
directed their attention are as follows : First, Have the Common
Council of this oity, under the existing laws relative to common
schools in the city of New York, a legal right to appropriate any
portion of the school fund to religious corporations ?" Now, with
great deference, he did not conceive that that was the case at all.
He should like to know from the venerable chairman of their pre-
vious meetings, whether he and those who accompanied him went
to the Common Council to ask for money for a religious corpora-
tion ? That was not the question, he (the Bishop) contended posi-
tively ; but this and this only was the question which that com
mittee should have asked themselves : whether the Common Council,
under a law of the State, should impose a tax on the people, and
not allow them the equivalent intended by law for which it was
imposed, in return. That was the true question [applause] ; and
he declared to the nieeting that if any person had asked for money,
in the name of Catholics, for " a religious coi'poration," he would
have been the first to refuse it. They wanted no money for reli-
gious corporations. Their religion they wished to support, and
they wished all other men to have the same privilege, by their own
free choice^ and in no other way. [Applause.]
The next question which the committee ask — and it is as a corol-
lary of the other — is, "Would the exercise of such power be in
accordance with the spirit of the Constitution and the nature of our
government ?" Now, what child would not be able to make an
argument on that ? Why that was an incorrect issue, and was not
the question at all. The real question was this : " Have, any por-
tion of the citizens of this State been subject to a law which compels
them to pay a tax, and have the benefits, for which it was intended,
been so returned to them that their religious consciences would be
violated in their acceptance ?" [Applause.] That is the question.
to AECHBISHOP HrGHES.
The committee could have no difficulty in proving that " religious
corporations " "were not the proper recipients. True, the trustees
of the Catholic churches might be considered as the citizens of that
communion, but he disclaimed the application to the _ Common
Council on other grounds than as American citizens claiming the
rights of conscience and the liberty to educate their own children.
Religion was entirely a private matter. If the conductors of the
public schools would see that our children were educated vmder the
Public School System and discipline— whether Lancasterian or other-
wise— they (the Catholics) cared nothing about it ; but they wanted
their children, without injury to conscience, to have their share of
ihe benefits from taxes which they had contributed. Now, of all
things calculated to spoil the merits of a question, an incorrect
Btatement of it had the most power to do so. If the state of the
question as to its real issue were erroneous, they could not arrive at
just conclusions ; and if the issue were false, all arguments in its
support would fall to the ground. But these gentlemen, in their
report to the Common Council, with wonderful energy, had almost
proved that it would be a union of Church and State; and so it
would, if what they stated were correct. While the advocates of
the Public School Society were asserting that there was nothing in
the books to which Catholics could object, he would appeal to the
meeting whether they had not seen page after page which showed
clearly the evils that would result from such a system. [Applause.]
But the gentlemen go on to show in that committee's report the
history and the progress of the question, and what the law was.
He (the Bishop) should not go through the whole facts with them,
nor into the inquiry whether a certain Baptist church was guilty
of peculation ; he should confine himself to the evils of this system,
and to the inquiry whether Catholics got their rights, and by and
by he Vv-ould show them some further extracts from the books, and
show that the managers of the Public Schools could not, or at least
should not, but know that the books contained passages reflecting
on the Catholic religion, and consequently that they were unfit to
put into the hands of their children. After setting forth the evils
of sectarianism, they proceed in their report to say : " To prevent,
in our day and country, the recurrence of scenes so abhorrent to
every principle of justice, humanity, and right, the Constitution of
the United States and of the several States have declared, in some
form or other, that there should be no establishment of religion by
law." Precisely what we wish. "That the affairs of the State
should be kept entirely distinct from, and unconnected with, those
of the church; that every human being should worship God ac-
cording to the dictates of his own conscience ;" and yet they will -
not allow us to do so ; " that all churches and religions should be
supported by voluntary contribution ; and that no tax should ever
be imposed for the benefit of any denomination of religion, for any
cause or under any pretence whatever." Just as if you wanted the
Common Council to pay your church dues or pew rent. [Laughter.]
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. ^J
Now Catholics did not want this money for their own benefit, but
for the benefit of those to whom the law appropriated it, and with-
out violating the rights of conscience, which they "were told the
Constitution secured to them. They then passed on to the observ-
ation, that " An appropriation of any portion of that sura to the
support of schools, in which the religious tenets of any sect are taught
to any extent, would be a legal establishment of one denomination
of religion over another." Now let them not be misunderstood.
Catholics did not wish to teach religion in those schools ; but when
they taught their children to read, instead' of giving them, as a
reading I'esson, Hume's chapter on the " JExecuiion of Cranmer"
they thought they could give them a better chapter out of Lingard,
respecting the struggle of the English barons and bishops on the
one hand, and the English king on the other, when the great char-
ter of liberty was secured. That would be a better lesson, too, than
Dr. Robertson's Life of Luther. Arid here, again, they were told,
after the observation about the " legal establishment of one denomi-
nation of religion over the other," that this " would conflict with all
the principles and purposes of our free institutions, and would vio-
late the very letter of that part of our Constitution which so emphat-
ically declares that ' the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for
ever be allowed, in this State, to all mankind.' " Why, here again
the committee were laboring with a phantom of their own inven-
tion, unless the gentlemen who waited upon the Council asked for
money to help the Church.
Mr'. O'CoNNOE. No, sir, I believe not.
The Bishop. Then it was the working of their own imagination,
and with all respect for these gentlemen, for they quote the law
fairly ; but when they supposed the law, as quoted, applied to them
(the Catholics), they reversed the position of the Catholics. Finally,
" In this opinion your committee hope the Board, the petitioners,
and the public will concur ;" that is, when they say it ought not to
be given. " The question is one of that character which appeals to
the liveliest feelings of our nature, and one which is too apt to create
excitement and jealousy." Not if it was properly understood and
fairly discussed ; for he believed the public mind in this country,
at least, the high and generous portion of it, would not allow any
man's civil or religious rights to be encroached upon without any
pretext whatever. " They conclude by expressing the hope that
the petitioners, tipon a full examination of the question, will pei-ceive
that the granting of their petition would be at least of doubtful
legality, foreign to the design of the School Fund, and at variance
with the spirit of our public institutions." Then it followed that
the support of a public institution required that their consciences
and their freedom should be violated. . And who would contend for
that?
In the commencement he had stated that it appeared the repre-
sentatives of the public schools had contradicted the statement of
72 AECIIBISHOP HUGHES.
Catholics, that their boots contained lessons that reflected on Catho-
lics. Now they had read several passages at pre\'ious meetings, of
which they were all able to judge ; but he would take one or two
other bri(ff passages, and he should like to see whether those gentle-
men would again stand before the Common Council and say that
the books contained nothing against Catholics. In " Putnam's Se-
quel," page 296 of the Appendix, they had a note on Luther, which
said, " Luther, the great reformer, was, at first, a Benedictine monk."
Now, he was not, for -he was an Augustinian. [Laughter.] "He
Hved to ward the close of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteen1,h
centuries. The cause of learning, of religion, and of civil liberty, is
indebted to him more than to any other man since the apostles."
Well that was a matter of opinion ; but at all events there should be
excepted Erasmus, who was a scholar, though a priest like himself.
He was first led away, though he never doubted the Catholic faith,
by popular abuses, which he thought could be removed ; but he was
devoted to literature, and he deplored the Reformation precisely on
the ground that it would throw back the progress of literature a
hundred j'ears. Here letters were reviving, men were devoting
themselves to the study of antiquity, and here, he complained, there
was nothing but broils and polemical disputations, and literature
was neglected. Whether Luther was such a friend to literature, he
(the Bishop) knew not. But here was another passage, on " John
Huss," of whom it said, " John Huss, a zealous reformer from
Popery, who lived in Bohemia towards the close of the fourteenth,
and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. He was bold and per-
severing ; but, at length, trusting himself to the deceitful Catholics,
he was by them brought to trial, condemned as a heretic, and burnt
at the stake." Now these are lessons for the instruction of your
children, and yet gentlemen go to the Common Council and tell
them these books contain nothing against Catholics. Now, besides
the injury done to their children, let him observe that he did not
conceive, even if Catholic children were separated from those schools,
while they were supported at the public expense, that passages like
these, which were calculated to fix a settled prejudice in the mind
of one class of fellow-citizens against another, were in accordance
with the spirit of their constitution, or those high and holy principles
which religion taught them ; nor could they be of advantage in an
enlightened system of public education. Give to Catholics their
proportion of this fund, and they might search their books from one'
end to the other, and however much they might insist on the truth
of their own religion, there would not be found a single passage
calculated to implant in the minds of their children a single con-
temptuous thought of any man or body of men in the United'States.
But he was surprised that the Public School Society, because they
taught no doctrine from any specific text, while they introduced
page after page such as he had read, should appear before the public
authoi-ities and claim the money which Catholics conceived to bo
due to them, and deprive them of their rights secured to them by
THE SCHOOL ■QUESTION'. 73
law, on the ground that there was nothing sectarian in their books.
And he was equally surprised that the gentlemen should feel hurt
at that which they ascribed to the system, and not to the men con-
nected with it, though they had said that Catholics could send their
children to these schools without any riolation of conscience — that
there was nothing' that could possibly give oifence — and he would
ask them how this could be reconciled with the specimens he had
quoted. But there was another ground. He was surprised that
that Society should think it was their interest to compel all children
learning to read, to learn undev their exclusive patronage. He
thought the intention of the State was that every child in the Com-
monwealth should be educated, and not that his religious rights
and his conscience or those of his parents should be violated. He
would concede to the Public School System, with all due respect,
and nothing more, that which it was entitled to; but that Society
thought it was exclusively entitled to not only what was appropri-
ated to it, but also to hinder Catholics from obtaining their rights,
which was sacred and indisputable. And why was it he felt so sur-
prised ? It was this ; this Public School Society was not at any
time from its orign the representative of the State, but merely a
private corporation ; its trustees were not elected by the voice of
the people ; but they were a society composed of members who
were qualified by contribution, or otherwise became members by
election within their own body. [Hear, hear.] Before they ex-
isted as a society, provision was made for the education of the chil-
dren, and there was no turmoil, there was no civil war ; there were
none of the terrible consequences and evils which appeared now to
be anticipated if the claim of the Catholics should be conceded.
Then education was amply pro^ ided ; each school had its own chil-
dren ; each party took care of its own rights, which they thought
sacred, and evei-ything went on in perfect harmony and for the good
of the whole. And wh«n this Public School Society was formed,,
it was formed with a laudable pui-pose, with a name at its head which
shone among the brightest on the page of American history — De
Witt Clinton. [Applause.] The gentlemen forming that society
saw a number of surplus neglected children apparently with no one
to take care of them, and they proposed to take care of the chilflren
for Avhom nobody cared before. Their object was pure, and be-
nevolent, and patriotic ; and accordingly in the very first charter of
this society, which however has since repeatedly changed its name,
the object was stated to be — ■'■'■ the education of the children of per-
sons in indigent circumstances, and who do not belong to, or are
not provided for, by any religious society." In that charter there
was nothing said about excluding sectarianism: nothing of the sort;
but when they go before the Legislature, they go before a Christian
legislature, and no doubt they were Christians themselves and men
of good motive. After the first paragraph in their act of incorpora-
tion, the second begins — " And whereas the said persons have pre-
sented a petition to the Legislature settuig forth the benefits Avhich
^4 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
woiild result to society from the education of such children, h^^
planting in their minds the principles of religion and morality, and by
assisting theii- parents to provide suitable situations for them, where
habits of industry and virtue may be acquired, and that it would
enable them more effectually to accomplish the benevolent objects of
their institution, if the association were incorporated." And this
ime Society which was originally instituted to implant in the minds
jf children " the principles of religion and morality," now came out
against Catholics and said, if they gave children such instruction
they were not entitled to any beAefit from the Public School Fund
[hear, hear], and they have not only said so, but from the period
of the misapplication of the funds by one society being detected, the
part which related to religious societies before, was altered by law.
Until that time, every society had the right to go before the Corpo-
ration an(J demand its share ; but from that time they were deprived
of the right to demand it, but a discretion was given to the Common
Council ; as though the Legislature had said, " here is abuse ; if it is
connected with that system let it be abolished ; but we leave the
Common Council of New York to determine what schools shall be
entitled to the money;" and after that arrangement between the
Legislature and the Common Council, they each (Christian denomi-
nation) apparently gave up to the system, and so it had gone on.
But up to this time other societies had been receiving the money,
and there was nothing in their institutions or schools to disqualify
them ; for they would observe that they were called either " insti-
tutions or schools," and either were proper for 'the exercise of the
discretion of the Common Council ; but while the Common Council
would exercise this discretion, behold these gentlemen, who were
originally incorporated for the giving of religious instruction and
implanting of moral principles, step between Catholics and the Cor-
poration and say, " No ; because you teach your children religion
you are not entitled to it." Now it was a matter of discretion with
the Common Council ; there was certainly not a single provision
that stood in the way of such a just and fair interpretation ; and
when the obstacles already alluded to were put in the way, they (the
Public School Society) were receiving their portion for the same
purpose. And after all what was this incorporation but a private
incorporation like any other; not one certainly to dictate to the
whole of New York. It was instituted for a specific purpose, useful
and honorable in itself; and he had no doubt that those gentlemen's
best wishes were for the extension of their system of education ;
but they ought not to force it on Catholics ; it was not modest in
them to do so, nor to send advocates to the Common Council to
plead against the rights of Catholics when they were but a private
corporation themselves. If they had represented the whole State
and had obtained a "patent-general" he should have respected them
and their opposition ; but their act of incorporation was private, and
they had never been able to raise it to more than that. But he
would show a little of its history by an abstract of its several acts
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 15
of incorporation. Originally, it seemed, it was the smallest of all,
but like Pharaoh's lean kine, it had eaten up all the rest. In 1805
it was incorporated by the name of "A Society instituted in the
city of 'New York for the establishment of a Free School, for the
education of poor children, who do not belong to, or are not pro-
vided for by any religious society." In IgOS its power was extended
to on?/ poor or destitute children, and its name was changed to that
of " The Free School Society of Few York." Here in three years after
its origin was the first extension of its powers, though there were
several intermediate acts swelling its privileges. The enactment
was in these words : " The name of the said corporation shall be, and
hereby is, changed, and that it shall in future be denominated, ' The
Free School Society of Few York,' and that its powers shall extend
to all children, who are proper objects of a gratuitous education.' "
Now there was something worthy of notice in the last name as-
sumed, that of " Public Schools," with which they were authorized
by another act of the Legislature of 1826, to label these schools,
" Public School Society of Few York !" as though they belonged to
the State, whereas the schools belonged but to the Society itself, ac-
cording to their charter. It was to be observed that this Society
claimed; and he did not pretend to deny their claim to, patriotic in-
tentions and good motives, but if their good intentions conflicted
with the rights of Catholics it could not be expected that Catholics
would submit to their good " intentions." Thus this Society had
gone on, and it had received aid to erect its public schools, and in
another act they were authorized to receive payment from the parents
of scholars, and yet were not to be deprived on that account of a
corresponding portion of the public fund ; so that they could receive
pay from the parent and yet count the child in the number of those
for whom they received payment from the State. Fo doubt they
wished the poor to attend those schools : the schools were intended
for all, but jsrincipaliy for the poor, whose parents were not able to
give them a good education ; but they were now attended by the
children of such respectable citizens that the children of the poor, in
their mean robes and unseemly garments, were often ashamed to
appear in such genteel company. Well, then those. schools received
certain specific ajipropriations, they then might receive payment
from the parents of children attending and did recei\'e from the
State for the same children ; and yet they came in and interposed
between Catholics and this money which they wanted for the educa-
tion of their own poor children who could not be educated at those
schools without violating the- sacred rights of American citizens.
[Applause.] It was unnecessary for him to enlarge much further.
He had no want of respect for .the Public School Society, but it was
vain in them to say that Catholics impeached their motives, or that
when Catholics objected to the system they objected to ikem per-
sonally. Catholics could not certainly recognizfe in them the power
of the State ; and with such documents and books as those he had
refcrrelto they could not submit to the system notwithstanding
10 ARCHBISHOP nUGHES.
the Public School Society could see nothing in it objectionable to
Catholics. The question was a simiDle one and did not require much
deep investigation of .facts to determine what should be the issue.
Enough was seen before this discussion commenced in the sacrifices
of the poor Catholics — for they were comparatively poor — to make
room under their churches for the education of their children (while
they were paying taxes like other citizens) apart from the instruc-
tion which taught them of the " deceitful Catholics" who burnt per-
sons at the stake. This proved that it was no affectation on the
part of Catholics, but that their consciences prompted them to make
sacrifices to multiply schools — to take into their own hands the
burden of giving an education to children, imperfect as it must be,
with their means, to 3,000, 4,000, or 8,000 childi-en at a double ex-
pense. For they first paid to the State, but seeing the advantages
come back so diluted, they paid a second time to secure education
without insult to their religious faith. It was conscience then and
not affectation which prompted them to do this, and whatever might
be the result with the proper authorities one thing was certain, that
with those schools, so constituted. Catholics could have no commu-
nion. [Applause.] If, according to the spirit of legislation on this
subject, their proportion of this money was set apart in amanner
that Catholics could avail themselves of it, they would accept it with
gratitude : if they would give them a place to educate their children
in, or if they would ev^ n organize their schools, they should be satis-
fied. To the system, that is, the machinery of the system of educa-
tion. Catholics did not object; and they should, give proof that they
wished no opportunity to peculate, nor should be>guilty if they had,
of peculation of \hese funds. Let them give to Catholics their own
books, and they would be content if the minds of their children were
not poisoned against the faith of their fathers, for which for a^-es
those fathers had been ready to die, [Applause.] If this were done
Catholics would be grateful, but in their gratitude they should tell
those gentlemen that it was notliing more than that to which they
were entitled. [Ileai-, hear.] But if this should be i-efused, they would
but be still as they are at present ; and many of them were not
strangers to inequality and oppression which would strive to make
them less than their fellow-citizens. But let it come to this that
either they would have the benefit of education according to their '
religious convictions, or that those refusing it should say, " you shall
not, and for no other reason but because you are Catholics." That
should be the ultimate issue ; let the question be reduced down to
that ; and if the day was at hand v,±en the public authorities of
America would offer such violence to conscience, and debar them
of their rights as citizens, then they might despair of the Kepnblic
But he had no apprehensions of that'kind. As he had said before'
se\eral tunes, whatever might be the misconception or the want of
infonnaliou or wroiig information or prejudice on the subject-
making allowance for all this— there was running through the pubhc
mind a vein,- a rich \ein of public equity which would not allow the
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 77
Caf.holics thus to be deprived of their rights. [Applause.] But
still he was not surprised at the misrepresentations of the Joxirnal of
Covimerae and of the Churchman, or any other paper. It was sur-
prising that there was not more misrepresentation, when they con-
sidered the way their fellow-citizens were taught, and when they
reflected that they were brought up at the same literary table where
they imbibed with their aliment a prejudice which an acquaintance
with Catholics for life, of men honorable and high minded, was
scarcely able to destroy. What remained for them was simply to
persevere — -with moderation and dignity, but with a firmness wor-
thy of their standing in the American community — persevering with
great moderation, but at the same time with great dignity and great
firmness, narrowing the question down until the tvs'o issues he had
mentioned presented themselves alone, and they obtained that of
which hitherto they had been denied. [Applause.] Yes, this was
the course that was left for them. He himself had no objection if
the whole Public School Society were there to hear all he had to
say ; for in all he had said in ' either pubhc or private, as far as he
remembered, he always separated men from things — he always sep-
arated the men connected with this school system from that which
was the legitimate subject of criticism. He had therefore separated
the public school and the teachers, but when they sent books of this
description, and when Catholics contended for their rights on Chris-
tian principles, they were told there was no cause of complaint,
justice required that they should animadvert on the subject so far
as was necessary to vindicate themselves, but no further. He knew
that was not the place to enter upon the truth or falsehood of the
lesson on " John Huss." They knew the crime for which he suf-
fered; it had been on the statute books for more than six hundred
years, as far back as Justinian even. It was a barbarous, a cruel
punishment ; but if so, the gentlemen should have known that it was
not Catholics that inflicted it but the law of the empire to which he
was subject. He might mention that he had the opportimity once
to meet a Protestant gentleman in an assembly as large as this ; that
when he pressed him for proof he had none to give : and when he
went further and brought the case of John Huss, not from a Cath-
olic but from a Presbyterian writer who wrote the history of the
Council of Constance, the Catholics were acquitted and the Emperor
alone was implicated, because it was- believed he betrayed Huss, to
whom it ^^-as supposed he had given a free pass. But L'Enfant tells
us that before Huss went to the Council the Emperor told him if
the Council pronounced hi? doctrines heresy, and he did not retract,
he must sufier the penalty of the law, and he (the Emperor) would
be the first to aj)ply the torch. But they might as well attempt to
run the stream of Niagara back as to tell this. This was shown,
however, in the presence of a Presbyterian clergyman. It was
printed and published in the report of that discussion, and to the
present time he lias had not one word to say on the subject. He
repeated,' this wa-s not the place to bring up things of this kind, but
78 AECHBISHOP IIIJGHES.
what must be his feelings when he saw such things in these school
books, and this barbing of the arrow against the Cathohc rehgion,
when he knew they were not true. Even if true they should not be
put into the hands of children ; nor should Catholics if they taiight
their own children let them read as a lesson a chapter on the burn-
ing of Michael Servetus by Calvin. If these things were true they
should not be admitted, for it was not right to prejudice one class
against another. But when they saw these things in the books of
the public schools it was not surprising that they spoke with empha-
sis, or, as the Churchman has it, that they should be a little bold.
[Great applause.]
Mr. Mullen rose and said : " Mr. Chairman, I move a vote of
thanks to the Editor of the Freeman's Journal for the trouble he has
gone to, and expense he has incurred, in publishing an '■'•Exlrar >iOTL-
taining the Address, and for the uniform interest he has taken in this
cause from the commencement." A gentleman, who sat in front of
the Bishop, said that if a vote of thanks was passed, it was first due
to the Bishop for his untiring exertions.
The Bishop rose and said : " I will offer a simple observation on
this subject; certainly, Mv. White, the Editor of the i^reeman's Jour-
nal, is entitled to a vote of thanks, and I think it worthy of the gen-
tleman who has proposed it; but at the same time there are so many
who may be entitled to the same distinction, in one form or another,
that perhaps it might be thought a little invidious if one should be
selected and another not. I am sure Mr. White will feel highly
rewarded by the consciousness that he has been at all instrumental
in helping the cause forward, and at a later period, when we have
approached nearer to the accomplishment of our wishes, the opportu-
nity may present itself for such compliments. But at the same time,
while I acknowledge the kindness and the propriety of feeling
which dictated it, at this moment I think it would be better to
omit it. Mr. White, you know, is a Catholic like ourselves and feels
the interest that we all feel,, and if you commence this, the first vote
will perhaps be due to the Editor of a daily paper in this city who is
not a Catholic, but who has had the spirit and sense of justice to
come out in our favor. [Applause.] But even in this case I should
not be for moving a vote of thanks, for I am sure he was actuated
by a sense of public duty, and in that consciousness he will feel his
reward. We should not be tmgrateful, but for the present I would
suggest the propriety of withdrawing the motion."
Mr. Mullen. Mr. White has gone to great expense in publishing
an Extra and has ably advocated our cause, for which he is entitled to
our thanks ; but I consent to withdraw the motion. [Applause.]
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. Y9
LETTER OF BISHOP HUGHES TO THE
EVENING- POST.
The following letter of the Right Reverend Bishop Hughes was
written in answer to an anonymous communication addressed to
him, which appeared it the Evening Post, signed "An Irish Catholic,"
slandering the motives of the Catholics, and charging the Bishop
with being the dupe of one of the political parties of the day :
Me. EDiTOEi.Your correspondent who signs himself "An Irish
Catholic;" and dedicates his homily to me by name, must be a very
inconsistent man. He must know that thousands of the children
of poor Catholic parents are growing up without education, simply
.because the law as interpreted and administrated under the Public
School Society, requires a violation of their rights of conscience.
The number of such children may be from nine to twelve thousand.
Of these the Catholics, by bearing a double taxation, educate four
or five thousand ; a few hundred have attended the Public Schools ;
and the rest may be considered as receiving only such education as
is afforded in the streets of New York.
Now I should think that an "Irish Catholic" should see in this
state of things quite enough to excite my pastoral solicitude for
the spiritual and moral condition of the people committed to my
charge. In the part which I have taken in the matter, I am only
discharging a conscientious duty.
But it appears that your correspondent understands my duty
better than I do, and that I am only the well-meaning dvpe of a
"Whig club in disguise," notwithstanding the "great abilities"
which he is pleased to ascribe to me. When I returned to this
city, I found the Catholics broken up and divided, thanks to the in-
terference of such men as your correspondent. Now, happily, that
the question has been relieved from all the dead weight of poli«
ticians of either side, they are united. We exclude politics from
our deliberations, as carefully as religion is excluded from the Public
Schools. We are composed of all parties in politics ; but as the
topic is never introduced nor alluded to, there is no occasion for
disagreement. We meet to understand the injuries which we ai'e
compelled to suffer, and to seek for their removal. Among the
sufferers are men of both parties — among those who would perpetu-
ate the injuries, are men of both parties — and our object is to seek
justice from just and upright men, who will comprehend our griev-
ances, without distinction of party.
80 AECHBISHOP nUGIIES.
But it appears that the Catholics are to rest satisfied with what-
ever injustice may be inflicted on them, lest their complaining
should be construed into a "political purpose." If so, there re-
mains nothing for them but to endure in silence. Is that what this
"Irish Catholic" requires? The Cathohcs are divided in then-
politics ; it is their right to be so. But on the question of public
education, in the city of New York, there is not a Catholic who is
acquainted with the subject, and deserving the name, who is not of
the same mind. I doubt much whether your correspondent is one
of the number.
He is extremely liberal of imputations against the Catholics for
preferring what he admits to be their " rightful claims." But he
has forgotten to get any respectable vouch'er to endorse the purity
of his motives in opposing them. Pie calls one of the parties into
which the country is divided " our natural enemies." I do not
know what such expressions mean in the slang of politicians, but
there is no class of enemies of whom the Catholics should be more
on their guard than of such as would traflic on their creed and
country in order to get their votes — men who in periods of political
excitement become more Irish than the Irish themselves, and more
orthodox than the Church ; whilst to both they are little less than a
permanent scandal at all other seasons. Can your correspondent
show me a certiiicate from any pastor of 'New York, that he has
complied' with his religions duties as a Catholic within the last
seven years ? He is a political Catholic, just as Lelande, although
an atheist, professed himself a Catholic atheist.
N'ow I charge upon your correspondent the attempt to defeat
those claims which he acknowledges to be just. And yet he is ap-
prehensive, forsooth, that I shall narrow the sphere of my useful-
ness by supporting those just claims, and doing so without giving
any opportunities for political demagogues of either party to carry
divisions into our union. Let him not be uneasy. If he be an
" Irish Catholic," his commvmication proves that he must have be-
come very "enlightened" since he arrived in this country. The
manual of politics must have superseded the Council of Trent in •
his mind.
He is not even a good reasoner, nor in my mind a clever poli-
tician. He acknowledges the claims of the Catholics to be just,
and yet he denominates their efforts in urging those claims a " pious
fraud." He knows that the Catholic public are unanimous in their
determination to prosecute their "rightful claims," and yet he asserts
that they will receive from the Catholic public (i. e. themselves) " that
contempt which they deserve."
Even the party which he affects to support cannot escape the
havoc of his hasty logic. He tells us that our better hope of justice
will be from his party, ," when in power," as if nothing but power
tt-as Avanting, when they refused those claims last spring. They had
the power and refused to exercise it. What more could our "natural
enemies " do ? But I will save him from the consequences of his
THE SCHOOL QrESTlON. 81
vicious reasoning by observing that the Common Council, in conse-
quen9e of not understanding our claims as they should have been
set forth and understood, made a false issue — and refused what we do
not ask, viz., public money for Catholic education. I believe that
had they understood our grievance simply as they exist, they would
'lave come to a different conclusion. Consequently, in connection
with the subject of Public School Education, it is not necessary for
any Catholic to change his political party, although they are free to
do so if they choose.
I regret exceedingly, Mr. Editor, to be obliged to trespass upon
the limits of your valuable paper, or to appear before the public in.
reply to a correspondent who conceals his name, and adopts a signa-
ture of which, in the present instance, I believe him to be altogether un-
worthy. I have had no connection with political parties — I shall have
none. They are much less important in my mind than the salvation
of one child from spiritual and moral ruin. I see thousands of the
children of our poor Catholics exposed to both; and I appeal to just,
and humane, and patriotic men of all parties, to aid me in effecting
their rescue.
It could not be, therefore, without much pain that I saw my
n^me pinnacled at the head of a political appeal by a partisan in
politics, who professes by his signature to be a member of my
flock. I look upon it as an attack upon me, as an attack upon the
efforts of the Cathoho body to secure their rights of education to
the children, without prejudice to the dearer rights of conscience.
Let your correspondent or any other respectable person write over
his own signature, and not as a political partisan, and I am prepared
to meet him on the whole question. But as for anonymous attacks,
I hope the present communication will relieve me from the necessity
of noticing them in future.
I have the honor to be your obedient servant,
S[-< JOHN HUGHES,
Bishop, Coadjutor and Administrator
of New York.
New York, September 3, 1840.
Meeting in the Basement of St. James' Church, Septem-
ber 7, 1840.
On Monday, the 7th September, the largest and most numerously
attended meeting of the Catholics which had yet been held on the
subject of Common School Education, convened in the basement
of St. James' Church. The meeting having been called to order,
Thomas O'Connor, Esq., was unanimously elected to preside over
their deliberations, and the secretaries appointed on former occasions
were again re-elected to that office. After the minutes of the lasj
6
82 ARCHBISHOP HUGHBS.
meeting had been read and approved, the Eight Rev. Dr. Hughes
rose and was received with great and enthusiastic cheering.
After the plaudits had subsided the Bishop proposed to the
meeting, for their adoption, two resolutions designed for the regu-
lation of their proceedings in discussing the important subject
which had called them together. The object of the resolutions, he
said, was to recognize the propriety of adhering strictly, in all re-
marks that should be offered to the meeting, to the question before
thpm, and to induce gentlemen who should favor the meeting with
the expression of their sentiments, to give to the subject that careful
consideration which its importance required.
The resolutions were then proposed and unanimously adopted ;
and the Bishop continued. All present, he said, would at once un-
derstand the peculiar propriety, if not necessity, which existed for
the adoption of these resolutions ; narrowly watched as their move-
ments were on all sides by many who were ready to pervert what-
ever might be said, and to impeach the purity of their motives and
intentions, a more than ordinary degree of circumspection was
necessary. In other places, and at meetings held for the discussion
of other questions of public concern, a greater degree of latitude
was allowed, and so strict a scrutiny of whatever might fall from
gentlemen in the excitement of public speaking was not instituted —
but if any person at our meetings, continued the Bishop, should
make a slip, or inadvertently say anything that was susceptible of
misrepresentation, it was immediately seized upon. Our meetings
here, although not political meetings, are yet composed of persons
of every variety of political opinion. But these political opinions
are all repressed here ; they are not suffered to influence the con-
duct or sentiments of any one, although they are not abandoned nor
laid aside. A man cannot lay down his opinions on entering this
room, as he would lay down his coat. He carries his feelings and
his opinions with him ; they form part of his identity, but they are
not allowed to influence him on this subject. Our meetings are not
then political ; we meet for the purpose of examining and investi-
gating this important subject ; for the purpose of extracting light
that we may see, and understand, and be enabled to vindic.ite our
rights. Neither should it be wondered at by political men that we
should assemble here to discuss the question of our rights, and that
we should oomplain of our grievances. They need not be aston-
ished when they witness it. If they tickle us we must laugh— if
they bruise us we must complain ; when a cause exists they must
lookfor the effect, and need not be surprised to find it. And o'f all
considerations that can press anxiously upon the public mind, the
present system of education in the Public Schools of this city is the
most important, both as it regards the present and the future wel-
fare of those who are subjected to its influence. It is my intention
this evening to review this subject briefly.
"What is the question, Mr. President, which presents itself to us
on examining this subject ?
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 83
The State of 'New York, for the purpose of improving the moral
and intellectual condition of the people, has appropriated a certain
fund for effecting that object; some one who has professed to
understand the law, has declared that it was intended to aid in
diffusing the threefold blessings of religion, morality, and education.
But by the present Public School System in this city, two of these
ends are set at naught. That system does not indeed say in express
terms that it is opposed to religion — it only declares that it is
opposed to sectarianism. But sectarianism in this country means
the whole body of Christianity. By the Constitution there can be
no established religion, but all sects are held alike, and the general
body of Christians is made up of all those sects, and when you
exclude the sects or sectarianism you exclude Christianity. The
object of this law was to aid in the inculcation of religion ; but as
it is now interpreted to mean religion without sectarianism, it oper-
ates, as I have shown, to exclude that for which it was professed
to be established ; it excludes the two prior ends for the attainment
of which it was designed — religion and morality — for religion forms
the whole basis of the moral character, and without it education is
but a dry and barren gift — good for nothing — and worse still, being
often, as we daily see, only a source of ignominy and deeper shame.
Here, then, is the position in which we are placed. We are required
to submit to a system which in fact promotes irreligion. But the
Constitution forbids" the teaching of irreligion by the State as
positively as it forbids the teaching of any creed of sectarianism.
It is as great a violation of the Constitution and of the sacred rights
of conscience, which it guarantees to all alik6, to support irreligion, as
it is to support any particular Christian creed. But by the management
and the theory now recognized by the public authorities, a state of
things is brought about in which we see a great overgrown monopoly,
a false monopoly — grasping at all the public money — assuming to
itself the exclusive right to control and direct popular instruction —
dealing out education according to its own notions — setting parents
and guardians, and all who have a natural or moral right to interfere
in the question of the education of their children, at naught — and
all upon the bold pretense that the religious tendency of other sys-
tems is a disqualification for them to claim a share in the business
of public education. From beginning to end this is their argument,
in fact, that religion is a disqualification, and that the absence of
religion in their system qualifies them to become the exclusive
teachers of the youth of the country — to acquire a monopoly of all
the rights and privileges of public instructors.
And now, sir, I have some public documents connected with this
subject, to which I will call your attention. The first of these is
the " Report of the Commissioners of School Money, for the Year
1840," ordered to be printed and placed on file by the Board of Al-
dermen of this city, on July 27, 1840.
After a very meagre statement of the proceedings, for a whole
year, of the institutions subject to their supervision, we come to
64 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
(lie concluding part of theii- report, -where we find the foUow-
iig:
" The Commissioners, in closing this report, refer with satisfaction to the recent
icisiou of the Board of Assistants, by which a renewal of ecclesiastical connec-
3ns with the Common School System in this city has been unanimously
'3nied."
Pray, what "ecclesiastical connections?" asked the Bishop; I
know of none that were sought for or desired ; I have heard of
none. But it answered a purpose to use these terms. The odium
of foreign ecclesiastical connections upon the city authorities would,
if it could be fastened upon the Catholics, go far towards defeating
their just claims. They asked to be allowed to participate without
violating their sacred rights of conscience in the benefits of this
public fund towards which they had contributed, and they are on
the instant accused of seeking to impose upon the State " ecclesias-
tical connections," and an appeal is thus made against them to im-
worthy prejudices by their opponents, instead of reposing themselves
upon the eternal rock of Truth, and looking to the polar star of
Justice as their guide in this important matter.
No ; they prefer to invent an imaginary case in order to ground
upon it an appeal to popular prejudice ; for I have never yet heard
or understood that the gentlemen who presented themselves before
the Common Council on behalf of the Catholics, sought for any
money for ecclesiastical purposes, for any ecclesiastical connection.
[" Never, sir !" exclaimed some of the gentlemen referred to.]
ittow can they then — how can these Commissioners, continued the
Bishop, talk of an ecclesiastical connection which was never asked
for nor desired — which was never contemplated, nor ever entered
into any person's mind but their own — which never at least entered
into the mind of a single Catholic on this subject? But to proceed
with their report :
" Without adverting to inflexible political maxims, which forbid such an union,
the Commissioners believe that practically it would be offensive to the public
feeling."
Not to justice, exclaimed the Bishop, no — but " public feeling !"
They will not speak the truth, and declare that we are a people
with eight or ten thousand children deprived of education for which
we have paid our money into the public treasury, and from the
benefits of which those children are excluded because we will not
outrage our consciences. No, they will not say this, because this
would not help their system, nor justify their conduct with the
public ; theywill not advert to the principles of truth or justice or
inflexible political maxims, but to public feeling — to prejudices ; and
if they can make out that the Catholics want an ecclesiastical con-
nection, these popular prejudices are excited and their favorite sys-
tem sustained.
Here the Bishop again read from the report :
" Without adverting to inflexible political maxims which forbid such an union
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 85^
the Commissioners believe that pvactieally it wouU be offensive to the public feel-
ing; unequal in its benefit to the various religious denominations; and destructive
perhaps, to the cause, now so flourishing, of free and general education."
How can they, said the Bishop, call it teee, where ten thousand
of the children of the city are excluded, by the bad principles involved
ill this Public School System, from a participation of the benefits
which it would confer if wisely administered ?
The Bishop then continued from the report :
" Should the school moneys be dispensed among the seminaries, the first qualifi-
cation of whose teachers is sectarian orthodoxy, and wherein prescribed forms are
inculcated, to which the assent of no entire neighborhood within the city could
be expected, — "
I have not heard, said the Bishop, that any such distribution of
the school moneys was proposed qr asked for ; but how these ad-
vocates of tlie Public School Society have lived by sectarianism —
which seems to be the beginning and the end and the whole bur-
then of all that they can say in commendation of themselves ! We
are no friends of sectarianism. But it is not the business of the
State to interfere with it. Every man has a political right to be a
sectarian ; and if we begin by excluding sectarian teaching from the
Public Schools, by and by the same authority may creep into the
Church, and exclude all sectarianism there. Every man has a right to
freedom of conscienc^e, to sectarianism, if they please to call it so.
And it is against this freedom, of conscience that this Public School
Society are arraying themselves, taking, from us our money, and
forcing upon us a system of education at which our consciences
revolt. [Great applause.]
But to return to the Commissioners .
— " it is to be feared," they saj-, " that such a distribution would be regarded as
inconsistent with the common rights which the present schema of public instruction
professes to secure."
How anxious they are ! They raise up a fabric of dangerous de-
signs that had no existence but in their own imagination, and then
make a display of their public zeal by denouncing it. Why did
they not look at the reality, and tell the Common Council that it
was a grievance for Catholics to pay taxes for the support of a com-
mon system of education, and then to be excluded from that system
and obliged to pay again for the education of their own poor ? But
no, instead of that, they make out an imaginary case in order to
justify the course which they have pursued, and waste tlieir paper
in describing dangers which were no where to be seen. But I have
repeatedly shown that this sectarianism is nothing else than Chris-
tianity, and that therefore the exclusion of it is the exclusion of
Christianity. If this is not the design of those who have tlie dis-
tribution of this public fund,, if they are sincere in their professions
of regard for religion, and that they desire that the youthful mind
of the country should be imbued with its spirit, why require the
public moneys to fee given to the support of a system that can only
86 ■ ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
aid in producing subjects for infidelity, already so rampant in the
land.
I know, sir, of the case of an individual, he was one who lived
long, and who carried with him in his mind but one single idea,
that was the idea of the length and breadth of a dollar. And by
turning that one idea over and over, he doubled and multiplied it,
and when in his old age he died, he died worth fifteen millions of
dollars. That man was Stephen Girard, of Philadelphia. He made
a will and appropriated a large portion of his wealth to the educa-
tion of orphans. In that will there is a clause of a genius so similar
to the spirit of our Public School Society, that one would suppose
they had both derived their philosophy from the same source. I
will read it for you — I have the entire will here with me. This is
the clause :
" Secondly, / enjoin and require thai no ecelesiaslical missionary or minister of any
sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station whatsoever in the said college ;
nm- shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a viiitor, within the
premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college. In making this restriction
I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever ; "but as
there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them,
I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans [Oh, the merciful Stephen Girard I]
who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which
clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce."
Almost a copy word for word of the doctrines of our Public
School Society ; only that as Stephen Girard is dead some eight or
ten years, and must have niade his will before he died, we might
doubt which of them, Stephen or the Public School Society, was
entitled to the credit of originality in this rigid and pertinacious ex-
clusion of all sectarianism from their system of education. [Laughter.]
But the wiU. continues :
" My desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains
to instill into the minds of the scholars tlie purest principles of morality," —
Just as the gentlemen of the Public School say. But where will
you get morality when you exclude religion ?
— " so that on their entrance into life they may from inclination and habit evince
benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry,
adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may eniible
them to prefer."
That is, said the Bishop, regarding the mind of the pupil just as
you would a machine, which when once set in motion would con-
tinue on without change or cessation, that would be so long accus-
tomed to turn on one particular cog that it would continue to do so
for ever after. [Laughter.]
I know, sir, of no parallel to the course of our Public School So-
ciety but this individual instance of Stephen Girard. But the par-
allel does not hold good throughout. It fails in one important point.
There was this difierence, that if he had his own peculiar notions of
education, Stephen paid the expenses out of his own pocket. [Great
laughter and appl^iise.] If he was cruel to the unhappy orphan and
THE SCHOOL QUESTION-. 87
W'iblied to deprive him of the blessings of a religious education, he
was willing, so far js pecuniary considerations were involved, to be
himself the ^■ictim of his experiment. But these gentlemen require
you to pay for the infliction upon you of the evils of their system.
They demand to be made the exclusive recipients of the public
money ; that it shall all be handed over to them, and that they shall
be allowed to give you in return just 'such a system of education as
they shall be pleased to provide, no matter how it may conflict with
your rights or your consciences. [Great applause.]
I will now offer some remarks upon some other public documents
connected with this subject which I have with me this evening.
In document ISTo. 80, of the records or proceedings of the Common
Council, is contained the Eeport of the Committee of the Common
Council, to whom the claims of the Catholics to a portion of the
Common School Fund was referred. In this Eeport the Committee
draw a distinction between the name " Incorporated Religious So-
cieties," who under the old law had an absolute right to the fund,
and the term " societies," as used in the Revised Statutes, and come
to the conclusion that a religious incorporated society is not a " so-
ciety," within the meaning of the new law. But we will not be par-
ticular about terms, and if they will deny it to us as a " Society,"
they are still authorized to grant a share of the public fund to " In-
stitutions or Schools," and Catholic schools can certainly, equally
with others, be embraced under one of those terms.
The Committee also talre up the objections made by the Catholics
to the present administration of the Common School System and
attempt a reply to them.
" It is urged," say the Committee, " on the part of the Catholic petitioners that
they, as tax-payers, contribute to the fund thus annually raised, and that they are
thus entitled to participate in its- benefits. This is undoubtedly true, but it should
be borne in mind, that they are taxed not as members of the Bomaii Catholic
Church, but as citizens of the State of New York."
That is, said the Bishop, we are citizens when they come to us to
gather the taxes, but we are Roman Catholics when we look for a
share of the fund thus contributed. [Tremendous applause,] lam
at a loss to learn the grounds of this distinction. That we were cit-
izens so long as we had taxes to pay was not denied ; but when we
seek to participate in the fund, with all their best efforts they could
only see one thing, that we were Roman Catholics. But we tell
them now that we want this money as citizens. We are Catholics,
it is true, and the Constitution gives us a right to be what we are,
and as citizens we come and ask for our rights in this matter. But
the whole proceeding on their part has been designed to baffle and
put us off. To use a homely expression, they have only been throw-
ing dust in the eyes of the public. What is it but throwing dust,
teaching all who are interested, that we are looking for the public
money to support religion, when we would be amongst the very first
to resist such an application of those moneys.
There is another point in relation to this Report ; and it is one of
88 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES.
humiliation when I consider that the disingenuonsness to which I
refer (jould enter into the minds or plans of the high-mmded gen-
tlemen who framed the Report. It is entitled "The Report ot the
Committee on Arts and Sciences and Schools, on the petition ot the
officers and members of the Roman Catholic and other churches in
the city of New York, for an apportionment of school moneysto the
schools attached to said churches." ISTow, said the Bishop, with the
exception of the trustees of the Scotch Presbyterian Church and the
Hebrew congregations in Crosby and Elm streets, there was no
church in the city of New York that petitioned the Common Coun-
cil on the subject. They sent in no petitions. They sent remon-
strances, however, against the claim of the Catholics, saying in effect
to the Common Council : if you grant to these the Catholic peti-
tioners what they claim, you will be run down with applications.
And even the Hebrews and the Scotch Presbyterian Church who
profess to claipi a portion of the fund do not directly petition for it.
The Committee should not therefore call them petitions, but should
class them where they properly belong, with the remonstrances, for
as such they were intended to operate. Do I find these alleged
petitioners complaining of the present system ? They say : " Your
memorialists had not thought of asking that any portion of the Com-
mon School Fund might be directed from its present channels of
disbursement." What is this but an admission, an implied declara-
tion, that such a diversion of the fund from its present channel
would be improper, and the whole is designed to impress upon the
Common Council the recollection that if the Catholic demand was
granted other claimants would arise ; for this purpose these petitions
were sent in and intended to be used, and in that respect they are
more effective than the remonstrances which they appear designed
to co-operate with. I do not say that such was the design, but such
is the effect in point of fact. " They had not thought," they say,
" of asking that any portion of the Common School Fund should be
directed from its present channels of disbursement." Why then
petition unless to discredit the Catholics ? Here again, following up
the same idea : " But understanding that the trustees of the Cath-
olic Schools of this city have asked for a part of said fund, if your
honorable body shall determine to grant their request and thus estab-
lish the principle that this fund though raised by general tax may
be appropriated to church or sectarian schools, then your memorialists
respectfully but earnestly contend that they are entitled to a ratable
jiortion thereof."
We do not, said the Bishop, want this money for church or sec-'
tarian schools. We merely want to educate our children without
instilling poisonous matter into their minds.
(The Bishop here read the conclusion of the Petition of the Scotch
Presbyterian Church, praying that they may be allowed to draw on
the school fund for the children taught at their schools ; and also
the petition of the Hebrew Congregation of a similar tenor, praying
for a portion of the fund, ''provided the Common Council should de-
THK SCHOOL QUESTION. 89
termine to appropriate it zaiih reference to religious faith") These
two petitions, then, continued the Bishop, tlie only ones praying in
any manner for a portion of the fund, are, in fact, prayers against
our rights — remonstrances — and should be classed with them. They
do not allege that they "want the fund or that they are suffering any
grievance — but they caution as it were the Common Council against
granting the relief we ask, as, in that event, they will also demand a
share.
All these gentlemen seem to think that we are very difficult to
please ; and they particularly urge that if we press our claims, the
present system of public education will be broken up. But I have
a simple answer to these objections. The schools are not as sacred
as conscience. The Constitution secures the right of conscience to
parent and child, but is silent on the rights of Common Schools.
There is then this answer to the argument which they draw from,
the dangers to which the prosecution of our claim exposes the Com-
mon School System. But we have another answer. Every other
denomination seems entirely satisfied with the present system. But
we are not satisfied with it. It is not one that we ever can be satis-
fied with. I shall show you presently that all who have sent in re-
monstrances against our rights approve of the ^jresent Public School
System.
The first on the list of remonstrances against our rights which we
have in this document No. 80, is " The Remonstrance of the Trus-
tees of the Public School Society ;" they of course approve of their
own system, and after stating their objections to our claim, they
conclude by saying, that their Executive Committee will present a
remonstrance more in detail. And in this remonstrance of the Ex-
ecutive Committee which I have also here, are some allegations that
require a passing comment. They state there that the objections of
the Catholics to the Public Schools are not " on account of any rehg-
ious doctrines taught in them, but because the peculiar doctrines of
the Church of Rome are not taught therein ; and they now ask (the
remonstrance -adds) for a portion of the public money, in order that
these doctrines may be taught in connection with the kind of instruc-
tion for which these moneys were raised." In the preceding para-
graphs are the following statements: "The managers of these
schools (the Catholic schools), having what they might deem higher
and more important objects in view, in the inculcation of religious
creeds or dogmas, could scarcely fail to neglect the literary for the
religious culture of the children's minds. If it be urged that the
Catholic schools are open to all, without distinction as to religious
sect, your remonstrants reply that this ftict only enhances the objec-
tion to granting the prayer of their petition ; which then virtually is
that they may lie enabled to gain proselytes at the public expense."
First they object to us that if we should be enabled to establifeh
schools for the education of the Catholic children, we -H-ould teach
our Catechism in them. And then if we reply that our schools arc
open to all, they charge us with a scheme for making proselytes at
90 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
the public expense. On what data do these gentlemen predicate
these calumnious statements? We do not want nor ask for the
public money to enable us to teach any religious doctrines. Ihe
assertion is a calumny for which no foundation can be discovered.
[Great applause.]
And now we come to the Methodists.
The members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, after statmg
in their remonstrance their objections to the grant of the Catholic
application, add :
" Your memorialists wish to be understood distinctly to declare their increased
confidence in, and approval of, the policy of appropriating the Public School
money to Ihe Public Schook only, and therefore remonstrate most decidedly
against granting the petition of the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Schools,
■which, in their estimation, would be a perversion of the Public School Fund." ^
Here we find the Methodists expressing their confidence in the
Public School System.
"We have, then, the remonstrance of William Holmes and sixty-
one other citizens, protesting against the diversion of the Public
School Fund from its present channel. Next comes the remon-
strance of the " East Broome street Baptist Church," in which they
express their beUef " that the present popular and highly efficient
Public Schools are better calculated to promote the education of the
rising generation than it could be done if entrusted to the great
diversity of religious sects into which the people are divided."
"Lockwood* Smith, and two hundred and nine other citizens,"
also remonstrate ; reiterating the groundless assertion that the
Catholics want the public funds to aid them in educating their
children according to their religious faith.
No, that is not what we want ; but simply that our children shall
not be taught that Catholics are " deceitful."
There is, then, no reason for the Public School Society to appre-
hend danger from the opposition of other denominations. The
Baptists — the Methodists — Mr. Lockwood Smith and two hundred
and nine others — all approve of the present distribution of the
public fund. They have full confidence in the present system.
Let them. We have none, and have no reason to.
We have here, too, the remonstrance of the " Reformed Protest-
ant Dutch Church," which I must not pass over; for you all know
that some leading persons in that church are the most gentlemanly,
polite, charitable, kind and conciliatory characters imaginable, when-
ever they treat of us or of our religion. [Laughter.] Well, these
gentlemen, too, declare in their remonstrance their unqualified
approval of the present administration of the Common School
Fund. But in referring to our application, they make some further
observations.
'"We believe," they say, '4t is the only instance in which any
society of professed Christians has ventured to invite the public au-
thorities in so-open a manner to forget or disregard that fundamental
principle of our civil compact, '■free toleration of all religious denonu
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 91
inaiions, special and exclusive privileges to none,^ and has boldly soli-
cited that their private and sectarian interests may be taken under
the fostering care of this State."
According to the principles of this remonstrance, then, said the
Bishop, it is necessary,' for the existence of free toleration, to tax
you for the support of schools from which you must either derive
no benefit, or allow your children's religious feelings and principles
to be perverted. For this is the alternative that the present system
imjioses upon Catholics, and it is to be relieved from this injustice
that they ask, and not, as is untruly charged, to violate ai>y princi-
ples of free toleration.
In the same manner with those I have read do all the remon-
strances proceed, approving fully of the pj-esent appropriation of
the»public funds.
There are no grounds, then, for the pretended alarm for the pros-
perity of the public schools ; or that the costly piiblic structures
which they have raised will become worthless. Every denomina-
tion besides the Catholics appears to be satisfied with the present
system, and from among those who have this confidence enough will
be found to fill their schools.
But those gentlemen go too far in their opposition : they place it
on grounds that cannot be sustained ; they go too far for the law ;
and even if the law bears them out, they go too far ; for if any law
of the State of New York operates either to compel a violation of
our consciences, or to deprive us of the benefit of taxation, it is not
constitutional. There is in. the Constitution no principle that can
justify coercion of conscience ; and against this injustice we will
appeal to the end. We cannot be worse than we are now. We
are paying now for a system from which we receive nothing in
return. When I speak of paying, I do not speak of men who live
in three-story houses ; for we all pay, the poor as well as the rich —
the poor man in the labor which he contributes — not only he who
owns or occupies a house, but every one who boards in a house
pays for the support of this system. We cannot be worse than we
are. We have striven for years to provide a substitute for those
schools from which we are excluded, and we cannot be reduced to
a worse extremity. They say to us, We throw open our schools ;
why do you not enter ? But if, instead of learning truth, our chil-
dren are stultified by false history, are open doors a compensation
for such a resKilt? Yes, take their books, and when your child has
read them through from first to last, what does he know of Catho-
lics? Nothing,; hardly knows that such a people existed, except
when killing Cranmer, or when reading of Luther as the greatest-
character of the age ; or about Huss being burned by those " de-
ceitful Catholics."
But if they choose to represent Cranmer as a saint, or a martyr,
they must not force their opinion of his character upon us. Scholars
— men who have studied and know what the truth of history is—
know that, so far from being a saint or a worthy character, he was
02 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
(at least in our opinion, and in this country we have a right to our
opinion) one of the greatest hypocrites. In discussing this matter,
gentlemen vrUl sny to me, " Bishop, do not press your rights too
strenuously; it will only excite prejudices which you know exist on
the subject." Yes, they will deplore those prejudices, and yet they
will put into the hands of the children of the public the very sources
from which these prejudices are derived. They will tell me, " Oh,
you know how prejudiced the public mind is ;" but if they put mto
the hands of the youth of this country the false history of Cranmer,
and others like it, what can they expect will be the result but a
prejudiced public ? When they bring forward passages, for the
instruction of children, from Beattie, Robertson, Hume, how will
children come out from such schools ? as if they thought that Cath-
olics had no existence — did not know their own history. I speak of
historical learning particularly. In the schools they must have
works to exercise and inform the minds of children : but why always
select those which convey the worst meaning? We have some
recollections. Catholics have had a past — a glorious past ; they
have had a history — one from which might be drawn ample lessons
of virtue, and wisdom, and patriotism ; and instead 6f selecting
from false and prejudiced writers, they might as well have gone
back and extracted some portions of Catholic history — something of
Catholic achievements — something of Catholic inventions and dis-
coveries. We should not then witness the depressing effect which
the repetition of all those slanderous tales against Catholics pro-
duces on the young Catholic mind. Have you not obser\ed it
yourselves ? Have you not seen the young Catholic, whose mind
has been filled with these calumnies, half ashamed, when he enters
the world, of his Catholic name and his Catholic associates, regard-
ing them often as an inferior, worthless set ? and how often has he
selected a different class of companions, merely from the servile
influence of these prejudices ! But if we were allowed our rights,
and permitted to draw from the treasures of Catholic knowledge,
how different would be the result ! Our children might then have
their minds imbued with a knowledge of all that their Catholic
fathers had done? they would then know that almost all the inven-
tions and discoveries which ha\-e ennobled the history of the modern
world are the productions of Catholic genius or enterprise; the
invention of printing— that greatest and most poweiful means in
the dissemination of knowledge ; the post-office ; the Sabbath-school,
on which they so much pride themsehes, and which is the fruit of
the benevolence and piety of a Catholic Archbishop— the sainted
Borromeo ; the newspaper or gazette ; tlie telescope ; the mariner's
compass.; the discovery of this great continent; all associated with
Catholic names and Catholic genius. And to pass from the material
world to the world of mind and morals, we will find there the same
abundant store of Catholic associations with which to fill the mind
of the Catholic child, and teach him to look upon himself and those
from whom he has deri\'ed his name, with respect and honest pride.
THE SCHOOL QUESTIOIf. 93
If you would let them have an idea of wliat there is great or excel-
lent in the Constitution of England, only tell them to tahe away all
that is Catholic, and what will remain ? Take it all, and what will
be left but poor-la-ws, and poor-houses, and two or three similar
institutions. Such would be the result of a Catholic education.
But, deprived of our rights, we can only expect to see two classes
— one educated, deriving benefits from a fund to which we have a
rightful claim, but from which we are excluded ; one class able to
devise the means for their elevation ; the other uneducated, depressed
and degraded; one composed of mechanics, men of knowledge and
enterprise ; the other left to carry the water and hew the wood,
without any means for improving their state except what the poor
Catholics can themselves provide. And all this because we will not
send our children where they will be trained up without religion ;
lose respect for their parents and the faith of their fathers, and come
out little philosophers, turning up their noses at the name of Cath-
olic, and ashamed of what they are in truth too -ignorant to respect
or comprehend. Never was there a more cruel injustice than
this system entails upon us, but I am willing to believe that it is an
injustice of which those who inflict it do not know the full extent.
If the Public School Society would remove the objections of
which we complain; if they will not'allow bad books or anti-
Catholic influences to operate in their system, we should gladly
send our children to partake of its benefits ; provided advantage be
not taken of the humility of their state, and that it will not be as 1
have known it once, when a child came home from one of these
schools abashed, arid saying that he could not again attend where all
were dressed in their fine clothes and ridiculed his rags and poverty.
We have no objection that these gentlemen* themselves should take
the whole management of the instruction into their hands, provided
it be done without the accompanying violations of conscience of
which we complain. But I shall press this subject upon those who
have the right and the authority to relieve us. 1 will reduce them to
the necessity of admitting the justice of our claims, whether the relief
is granted or not. We sh.all take away every pretext from them
which they now use to deprive our children of the rights which a
benevolent country has provided for them. Our consciences may
appear to them to be singularly sensitive. But what subject is
there of greater interest ? At the death-bed of the parent what is
there that excites in his breast a more keen and anxious solicitude
than that his child should remain true and faithful to his religion ;
and if such is the anxiety of the dying parent, what must be the
feelings of the living ? But these sacred feelings of the parent are
disregarded in this Pubhc School System, and they treat us like the
orphans of Stephen Girard. But with the diflference which I have
before noticed, that in this case the money which they waste in the
experiment is ours. But so long as the system remains unreformed,
they shall not, they may rely on it, have Catholic children to prac-
tic« upon.
l»4 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
In the Kepbrt of the School Commissioners for the past year there
is one thing I am yorry to see — the small number educated by the
Public School Society with the large means at their disposal diirmg
that period. It is stated there that they educated 13,189 children,
while we educated at our own expense one-third of that number ;
and while we were also obliged to swell their fund. They received
from the public fund $115,799 42, during the past year, and yet,
while we at our own cost educated one-third as many childrenas
they have done, they come in and remonstrate against our receiving
any portion of the public money to which we had contributed.
They may tell me it is zeal for the cause of general education that
actuates them ; but I assert that, with zeal and good management,
a much larger number of children might have been educated with
the same means than this Report shows. They say they have but
one end in view — the public good ; but being as they are such large
recipients of the public bounty, they should not be the first to step
between us and the public councils. They do not comprehend their
own position. They do not believe that they are all this time
swelling the tide of irreligion. They allege this, and therefore I
do not discredit their motives ; still, they are not infallible nor im-
peccable. And I do not see but that, with all their love for power,
grasping for the public mbney, and stepping in to defeat the appli-
cation of rightful claimants, there may be more that is earthy and
fallible in their motives than they admit even perhaps to themselves.
But however this may be, one thing is certain, that while the system
remains vmchanged there can be no more connection on the part of
Catholics with the Public Schools,
They pretend that the law cut off all religious societies. But the
law did not cut them off. It only moderated the right to demand
a portion of the fund. It left it discretionary with the Common
Council to grant or to refuse the money. It did not disqualify reli-
gious societies from becoming recipients of the public fund. I have
examined this question carefully and as well as my numerous other
engagements would permit, and I am entirely satisfied that no Cath-
ohc can conscientiously allow his child to attend those schools as at
present constituted.
While in the popular efforts at reform a hue and cry has been
raised against monopolies, there has been gradually a monopoly of
mind established ; taking it, too, in its most tender and susceptible
period ; and this monopoly is one which should be guarded against
with the utmost jealousy. The duty which it assumes belongs of
right to the parent and the citizen, and it is the last which should
be given up. If parents had delegated the right, it could not be
more authoritatively used than it is now by this monopoly. But
the right has not been delegated. It is a self-elected public in-
structor whose members are chosen within themselves on the prin-
ciples of the close borough system. And against this monopoly
and its spirit of encroachment we must never cease to direct our
most anxious attention.
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 95
The adversaries of our claims -will seldom now dispute the fact
of the existence of our grievances. But they will bid us look to
public feeling ; they will appeal to prejudices which they say are
arrayed against us. But I have no alarm. All denominations they
say will be leagued against us. If we ask for anything unjust, we
might feel apprehensive. But if we make the justice of our case
clear, if we clear away the mist which these documents and other
siniilar misstatements have created, my confidence is unshaken th.it
their sense of public justice will make even our opponents them-
selves accede to our just and temperate demands.
The Right Rev. Prelate here closed his address, throughout the,
delivery of which he was repeatedly applauded in the most enthu-
siastic manner, and he sat down amid loud and long-continued
cheering.
When several other speakers had addressed the meeting, the
Bishop rose and said, that in their present position in relation to
this question additional measures should be taken to insure the suc-
cess of their cause. They must promote it now not by speaking
alone, and he w^ould propose that some means of approaching the
Common Council should be devised ; that a committee be appointed
for devising some mode of ascertaining whether the Common Council
are still disposed to persevere in denying to the Catholics their
rights ; that mode might be either by petition or in some other
form. The Legislature had not denied to religious societies the
right to receive a portion of the Common School Fund. By the
alteration which had been made in the old law the obligation to dis-
tribute a portion of the fund among the religious incorporated soci-
eties had ceased, but the discretion to make such a distribution
where it would be reasonable to do so was still left. The law does
not state that a school connected with a church should not recei^•e
a share of the fund. There is no such disqualification imposed,
and consequently a discretion is still left to the Common Council to
make such a school one of the recipients, when a proper case should
arise. It is objected that the Catholics cannot bring themselves
within the meaning of any of the terms used in the recent laws.
But let this verbiage be put away ; let them call it schools or soci-
eties, they are certainly one or the other. The law never designed
that the Common Council should indulge caprice or whirti; but,
when they found a just or reasonable ground for the application,
they should grant it.
This committee might arrange the Executive part of the business,
said the Bishop, so that while we talk and while we write (for it
may yet be necessary to write much on this subject) we shall also
take some more definite action in the matter. I will therefore move
that a committee of five be appointed for the purpose I have indi-
cated. I will suggest that, in order to guard against any imputa-
tion of political partiality, two gentlemen of the committee be
selected from each of the leading political parties. [Great ap-
plause.]
96 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
The Bishop's motion being seconded, was then pnt to the meet-
ing by the chairman and carried unanimously, and the following
gentlemen were appoSited members of the committee : Rt. Rev. Dr.
Hughes, Thomas O'Connor, Dr. Sv/eeney, James W. McKeon, and
James Kelley.
Meeting in the Basement of St. James's Churoh, Septem-
ber 21, 1840.
On Monday evening, September 21, the Catholics again met in
great numbers in the basement of St. James's Church, to receive the
report of the committee appointed at the previous meeting to pre-
pare a memorial to the Common Council on the subject of their
claim to a portion of the Common School Fund for the education
of Catholic children. The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes was present
and was received with a warm and affectionate greeting on his
entrance. The Very Rev. Dr. Power was also cordially welcomed
as he entered the place of meeting, accompanied by a large body
of clerical and lay gentlemen, after an absence of some months from
the city for the restoration of his health. At the time appointed
for the commencement of proceedings Thomas O'Connor, Esq., was
again called to the chair, Gregory Dillon, Esq., was chosen Vice-
President, and the secretaries of former meetings were re-appointed
Mr. B. O'Conner, one of the secretaries, read the minutes of the
last meeting, and they were approved and adopted. Mr. James W.
McKeon then rose and said that the committee appointed at the
last meeting to prepare a memorial to the city authorities had dis
charged the duty assigned to them, and were ready to make theii
report. He therefore moved that the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes,
the chairman of the committee, be respectfully requested to read the
memorial which the committee had prepared. The motion having
been carried by acclamation, the Right Rev. Bishop Hughes came
forward and read the memorial, which was a most able and interest-
ing document.
On the_ motion of Mr. Gallagher, the report of the committee
was unanimously adopted, and another committee, consisting of
Thomas O'Connor, Esq., Dr. Hugh Sweeney, James W. McKeon,
Esq., and J. Kelley, Esq., were appointed to proceed at once to
present the memorial to the Board of Aldermen which was then in
council. In the absence of the chairman on this mission as one
of the committee appointed for that purpose, the vice-president
became the chairman of the meeting, but he requested the aid of
the Very Rev. Dr. Power, who took the chair amidst loud acclama-
tion. A motion was then made that the Petition just read, be
printed and published as containing an able, lucid, and clear exposi-
tion of the whole question, and the grounds on which the claims of
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. ' 07
f
the Catholics rested, and that by so doing it would prevent a gar-
bled-statement of its contents going befoi-e the public. But on. the
suggestion of Bishop Hughes that it might be showing a want of
proper courtesy on their part, to do so before publication by order
of the Common Council, the motion Avas withdrawn.*
After Dr. Power had addressed the meeting, the Right Rev.
Bishop Hughes presented himself, and was received with great
applause. He said he had mentioned, some time ago, that he had
understood that a reply, which usually meant an attempt at refuta-
tion, was being prepared by the Trustees of the Public Schools.
Happening to allude to it one evening, he had ventured to turn
prophet and say that it would be no reply in the sense of a refuta-
tion, and that prophecy was fulfilled in the document in his hand.
He said then there would be no meeting and grappling with the
facts and arguments of the Address, and he now found that instead
there was an appeal to public opinion ! They had tlie idea that the
prejudices of the community were with them, and that consequently
they could dispense with the trouble of contending with facts and
arguments at all ; and to get the " weather guage," as the sailor
would say, they introduce in the first paragraph the old phrase
about " Church and State," and they represent the Catholic Address
as a new appeal for a portion of the School Fund for the support
of their church-schools, as schools in which nothing but the cate-
chisin was taught from morning to night. He trusted now, that
the language of their Petition would make it clear, for they had been
reduced to the necessity of telling them what they did noi petition
for. [Applause.]
Well, after the introduction, which was the making their bow to
the prejudices of the community, they come to a proposition at which
he was startled ; the proposition was in these words : " It is proper,
therefore, that the allegations contained in the Address of the Roman
Catholics, be either admitted or refuted." Bravo, said he [laughter],
now you talk like men. In the next sentence they said, " They are
of a grave and serious character" — that they were [applause] — •
"and such as should, if true, justly deprive the Trustees of the con-
fidence which has been so long reposed in them. Bui they are not
truV And that — "But they are hot true" — was all the refutation
they gave. After that they might look in vain and they would not
find a single fact in their Address disproved; but they proceed to ad-
minister to that disreputable prejudice on which they calculated with
so much certainty. And as they had furnished no ground of review,
as they had taken up no point of. the Address, as they had not re-
futed any of its facts or reasonings, of course he was dispensed from
the necessity of going over all they had said, and he should there-
fore merely go over some portions of it, more for the purpose of pass-
ing the evening than for any other purpose. Well, they take advant-
age i^f this public prejudice ; then they state what they are charged
* This Petition is given on page 102.
98 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
»
with, and they add the significant words "But we forbear." [Laugh-
ter.] They say of the books, though, afterwards — they are brought
a little to their senses and cry peccavi — they do say they have had
wrong' books in the schools. This they acknowledge. But they say
" The reading-books used in the Public Schools are the same as those
used in private schools of a similar grade, in which children of vari-
ous religious persuasions, including those of our more wealthy fel-
low citizens of the Roman Catholic Church, are educated." And
pray was it an approval of those books because some of their "more
wealthy fellow citizens of the Roman Catholic Church" allowed
their children to be educated where they were used. No ; but they
submitted to it. But it would seem that the spirit of Proselytism,
and the device of meeting the children at the threshold, had be-
come general. They attacked the young mind, knowing that they
could not convert the grown-up Catholic in whose mind their holy
and divine faitK.was well established. [Applause.] But if Catholics
had allowed their children to attend schools where these books were
used it did not follow that they approved of them. Again they say
"many of them contain the best, most sublime and impressive essays
on morals and religion that can be found in the English language,"
— that is, they being the judges, — "and are ■ calculated to impress
on the young mind a belief in the existence of God " — what a long
creed that is ! — [laughter] — "the immortality of the soul"— why, Plato
believed that ! — and a future state of rewards and punishments. "They
picture vice in its naked deformity, and present virtue in her most
pleasing and attractive colors." And this is the answer they give to
the Address of th§ Catholics; and then, by way of showing what ex-
cellent institutions these Public Schools are — for they have not a high
test of their moral influence^they say, " Let the records of our crim-
inal courts, our prisons, and the receptacles of those who by reason
of 'rioting in the fierceness of unrestrained lusts,' have become a
public charge, be examined with reference to the effect of our system
of education on the mind and morals, as compared with any other
system, and the result will be found highly favorable to the Public
Schools." That is to.say, if the scholars do not find themselves
fof-thwith m the Penitentiary, the system is not so bad ! But we
should expect something better. He had said so to the Trustees,
and he violated no confidence by the disclosure— [laughter]— he had
told them that though the scholars educated in those schools were not
the persons most frequently found in the criminal jails, he was able
to prove, so far as such a matter was susceptible of proof, that the
.exclusiveness and the spirit of monopoly in that body of men, and the
eonsequent exclusion of so many from means of education, was the
cause why others do go to the Penitentiary. The children of the
,po_©r who did _,not go to those schools were not allowed by the pre-
,va.ling exclusiveness in the Trustees to be educated out of their
■",sho,p^ .tbey were consequently left uneducated and unrestrained;
•they ^i-e lett to form bad acquaintances by whom they became cor'
,j!Ujited,.and they corrupters in their turn. The cause was in the ex-
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 09
clusiveness of those men who would not allow them to have teachers
in whom they had confidence. [Applause.]
Here they refer to a chapter entitled " Sunday Morning," which he
read at a previous meeting from one of those school books ; and of
all chapters they thought this was selected with the least judgment.
They would recollect it was a story of a father and his son passing
on the Sunday morning through the churches of the different deno-
minations, and after entering a Catholic place of worship and re-
marking on every one of the Catholic congregation dipping his finger
in holy water and crossing himself as he went in, they wound up
that sincerity was the true spirit ; or in other words that it made no
difference what they believed — whether Quaker, Baptist, Episcopa-
lian, Unitarian, Methodist, or Roman Catholic — provided they raised
the man who fell in the street ; or provided one raised him, and
another applied a smelling-bottle to his nose, and another ran for a
surgeon, and another attended to his wife and children, it was no
matter what their religious creed was. - [Laughter.] Now this had
been before commented on in a newspaper paragraph, and in a leisure
half hour he wrote an answer, and to put it to the test he asked in
that letter that some Christian minister in liTew York should be got
to endorse that chapter from the pulpit, and no one could be found to
do it. Now there was a very powerful answer or refutation — for it
was to be observed that they lay down the rule that v/hat they don't
refute was to be admitted — they meet one of the charges of objections
of Catholics in the following manner : " They say that they could
not discharge their conscientious duty to their offspring if they al-
lowed them to be brought up under the irreligious principles on
which the Public Schools are conducted" — and observe they profess
to exclude all sectarianism, and if they do they exclude all Christian-
ity, and the system must be irreligious. Having quoted those words,
they give this answer : " And while they ask of the State the means
of supporting their schools, that they may train up their children 'in
principles of virtue and religion,' they assure the public that they
would scorn to support or advance their religion at any other than
their own expense." Certainly, Catholics assure the public of that,
and he repeated the assurance. But they proceed: "A solution of
some of these incongruities may, perhaps, be found in the fact, that
they do not class themselves among sectarians, or denominations of
Christians, but claim to be emphatically ' The Church.' " Now they
never found any such expression in any thing they had said. They
(the Catholics) spoke of their position as they stand before the coun-
try. The law called them a sect, and they spoke of themselves as
the law spoke of them, and those men thus readily resorted to this
perversion of their ideas without one iota of proof They (the Ca-
tholics) defied them to show that they had spoken as was asserted.
[Applause.] The reverend gentleman who referred a few minutes ago
to his part of the subject might have extended his remarks a little
further in the same chapter. They speak of the question of education
in Ireland, and to justify themselves they introduce what they had
100 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
said at a recent conference and the reply that was made to them.
They say: "It is known that a large portion of the bishops and cler-
gy of the established and other Protestant churches, and a majority
of the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland, have agreed upon a gen-
eral system of education, and a collection of extracts from the sacred
Scriptures for the National Schools of that country. At the confer-
ence just referred to, the question was distinctly put, whether the
objection of the Catholic clergy to the Public Schools, so far as re-
gards reading the Scriptures without note or comment, would be re-
moved by the use of these extracts in them. The answer was, that
the dissenting bishops had appealed to the Pope against the majority
of their body, and as/his Holiness had not yet settled the question,
he was not prepared to give his answer. The Trustees very much
regret that circumstances have placed them in a situation which ren-
ders this exposition necessary. But they could not do less and dis-
charge their duty to themselves and the public." Why, the Trustees
must have strange notions of the subject to suppose they need express
regret for making disclosures which are published in every pap%r in
the Britsh Empire ; but the meeting would perceive they were still
feeding that abominable prejudice of the public mind; saying in
effect: "Though the Protestants quarrel among themselves, they are
agreed against you" (Catholics). Oh! but Catholics have appealed
to the Pope, and they wanted to create prejudice by that, while they
claim credit for the moderation with which they had made it kno-jvn.
Yes, the Catholics do consult the' Pope, and they glory in consulting
the Holy Father, the Catholic Chief Pastor. [Great applause.] Now
it was not to be passed over that these gentlemen are over royal in
their ambition when they would place themselves in juxtaposition
with the British Crown — would consider themselves as holding the
same relation to us that the British Government held with the Irish
clergy in the question in dispute between them. But here the ques-
tion was not the same ; for the Trustees of the Public Schools in
New York were a private corporation, while the Catholics in Ireland
had to do with the British Government ; and concession yielding to
that government should form no precedent here. The contracting
parties on the other side were exceedingly different. But they come
to another point to show their liberality — they "yield to the conscien-
tious scruples of the Roman Catholics !" They yield ! What have
they to yield ? But they " are bound to protect the feelings and in-
terests of the Protestant churches !"
In England there is an officer who is designated the "Keeper
of the King's Conscience," and the Trustees of the Public School
Society are become the guardians of the consciences of both the
Catholics and Protestants— emph.atically the protectors of "the feel-
ings and interests of the Protestant churches !" [Laughter.] They
stand as umpires between the churches, and they profess to regret
that the Catholic clergy have not met them to obtain their confidence,
and to have a joint examination and expurgation of the Public School
books. Why, if they had, in what a situation would they have been?
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 101
Suppose he should go to the study of those books day after day, and
^veek after week, to point out the necessary corrections, and after he
had taken that trouble by courtesy to supply their want of ability to
understand them themselves, should be told that they must first
"protect the feelings and interests of the Protestant churches?" Did
they think Catholics had no "feelings" at all to be "protected?" Did
they think Catholics would make those corrections and submit them
to a board where there were but one or two voices that would be
raised to " protect " their religion, and enforce their constitutional
right to their doctrines? A question was asked of him whether
jCatholics would be content if they excluded all Scripture " without
note or comment." But he told them that Catholics were too hum-
ble to expect such a sacrifice. He was not willing to put it in their
power to place Catholics Jsefore Protestants as having such enmity
to the word of God. He did not say they would do so, but it would
have been in their power to make that use of that concession, and t!e
^vas resolved not to make or give them the opportunity. And here,
again, after referring to the Pope, and the question of education in
Ireland, they tell us they " remain ready and anxious to join with
the Roman Catholics in efforts so to model the books and studies in
the Public Schools, as to obviate existing difficulties. They think
that it may be done. But" and whenever they heard but in
language of this kind, they might expect something insurmountable
— [laughter] — " if, as was the case in the Irish National Schools, an
appeal to the Pope should be necessary, they are free to confess, in
the language of the Address, that ' a perfect neutrality of influence, on
the subject of religion,' is indeed impossible." Why, the fact is if
they had not truth wherewithal to meet the Catholic's facts and argu-
ments, as this showed they had not, it was not worth their while to
sneer at them, or to introduce this sly observation as though it was
matter of their concern whether- Catholics consult the Pope or not.
But Catholics did not require the aid of intrinsic light, while they
saw the PubHo Schools teaching their children that Catholics were
"deceitful," without distinction of age, clime or country. ' Catholics,
■who were more tlian triple in numbers all the other bodies together,
when they saw books put into the hands of their children which
stigmatized them as deceitful, they had no great necessity to consult
the Pope about the business. But it was not worth while to pursue
the subject further. [Great applause.]
102 ABCHBISHOP HUGHES.
PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS OF NEW YORK
FOR A PORTION OF THE COMMON
SCHOOL FUND.
TO TUB HONORABLE THE BOAKD OP ALDERMEN OP THE CITT OF
NEW TORE.
The Petition of the Catholics of New Yorlc^
Beapeotfxdly represents :
That your Petitioners yield to no class in their performance of, and dispo-
sition to perform all the duties of citizens. — They bear, and are willing to
bear, their portion of every comnion burden ; and feel themselves entitled to
a participation in every common benefit.
This participation, they regret to say, has been denied them for years back,
in reference to Common Scliool Education in the city of New York, except
on conditions with which their conscience, and, as they believe their duty
to God, did not, and do not leave them at liberty to comply.
The rights of conscience, in this country, are held by the constitution and
universal consent to be sacred and inviolate. ITo stronger evidence of this
need be adduced than the fact, that one class of citizens are exempted from
the duty or obligation of defending their country against an invading foe,
out oi delicacy and deference to the rights of conscience which forbids
them to take up arms for any purpose.
Your Petitioners only claim the benefit of this principle in regard to the
public education of their children. They regard the public education which
the State has provided as a common benefit, in which they are most desirous
and feel that they are entitled to participate ; and therefore they pray your
Honorable Body that they may be permitted to do so, without violating
their conscience..
But your Petitioners do not ask that this prayer be granted without assign-
ing their reasons for preferring it.
In ordinary cases men are not required to assign the motives of conscien-
tious scruples in matters of this kind. But your petitioners are aware that a
large, wealthy and concentrated influence is directed against their claim by
the Corporation called the Public School Society. And that this influence,
acting on a public opinion already but too much predisposed to judge unfavor-
.ibly of the claims of your petitioners, requires to be met by facts which
justify them in thus appealing to your Honorable Body, and which may, at
tlie same time, convey a more correct impression to the public mind. Your
l.etitioners adopt this course the more willingly, because the justice and im-
partiality which distinguish the decisions of public men, in this country,
inspire them with the confidence that your Honorable Body will maintain,
m their regard, the principle of the rights of conscience, if it car. be done
without violating the rights of others, and on no other condition is the claim
solicited.
PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. 103
It is not deemed necessary to trouble your Honorable Body with a detail
of the circumstances by which the monopoly of the public education of chil-
dren in the city of New York, and of the funds provided for that purpose at
the expense of the State, have passed into the hands of a private corporation,
styled in its Act o,f Charter, " The Public School Society of the City of New
York." It is composed of men of different sects or denominations. But
that denomination, Friends, which is believed to have the controlling influ-,
enee, both by its numbers and otherwise, holds as a peculiar sectarian prin-
ciple that any formal or official teaching of religion is, at best, unprofitable.
And your petitioners have discovered that such of their children as have
attended the public schools, are generally, and at an early age, imbued with
the same principle — that they become untractable, disobedient, and even
t-.ontemptuous towards their parents — unwilling to learn any thing of religion
— as if they had become illuminated, and could receive all the knowledge of
religion necessary for them by instinct or inspiration. Your, petitioners do
not pretend to assign the cause of this change in their children, they only
attest the fact, as resulting from their attendance at the public schools of the
Public School Society.
This Society, however, is composed of gentlemen of various sects, includ-
ing even one or two Catholics. But they profess to exclude all sectarianism
from their schools. If they do pot exclude sectarianism, they are avowedly
no more entitled to the school funds than your petitioners, or any other de-
nomination of professing Christians. If- they do, as they profess, exclude
sectarianism, then your petitioners contend thafthey exclude Christianity —
and leave to the advantage, of infidelity the tendencies which are given to ■
the minds of youth by the influence of this feature and pretension of their
system.
If they could accomplish what they profess, other denominations would
join your petitioners in remonstrating against their schools. But they do
not accomplish it. Your petitioners will show your Honorable Body that
they do admit what Catholics call sectarianism, (although others may call it
only religion,) in a great variety of ways.
In their 22d report, as far back as the year 1827, they tell us, page 14, that
they "are aware of the importance of early eelioious instruotion," and
that none but what is ^ exclusively general and acripturalin its character
should he introduced into the schooU under their charge." Here, then, is
their own testimony that they did introduce and authorize "religious instruc-
tion" in their schools. And that they solved, with the utmost composure,
the difficult question on which the sects disagree, by determining what hind
of "religious instruction''^ is " exclusimly general and scriptural in its char-
acter." Neither could they impart this •' early religious instruction " them-
selves. They must have left it to their teachers — and these, armed with
official influence, could impress those " early religious instructions " on the
susceptible minds of the children, with the authority of dictators.
The Public School Society, in their report for the year 1832, page 10, de-
scribe the effect of these " early religious instructions," without, perhaps,
intending to do so ; but yet precisely as your petitioners have witnessed it,
in such of their children as attended those schools. " The age at Mich chil-
dren are usually sent to school affords a much letter opportunity to mould their
minds to peculiar and exclusive forms of faith than any subsequent period of
life."' In page 11, of the same report, they protest against the injustice of
supporting "religion in any shape" by public money ; as if the "early re-
ligious instruction" which they had themselves authorized in their schools,
five years before, was not "religion in some shape," and was not supported-
by public taxation. They tell us again, in more guarded language, " The
Trustees are deeply impressed with the importance of imbuing the youthful
104 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
mind with religious impressions, and they have endeavored to attain this
object, as far as the nature of the institution will admit." Report ot 18.37.
In their Annual Reportthey tell us, that " they would not he understood
as regarding religcious impressions in early youth as unimportant; on the
contrary, they desire to do all which may with propriety be done, to give a
right direction to the minds of the children intruSted to their care. Iheir
scliools are uniformly opened with the reading of the Scriptures, and the
class-hooks are such as recognize and enforce the great and generally acknowl-
edged principles of Christianity." Page 7. , . i. i.
In their .S4th Annual Report, for the year 1839, they pay a high compli-
ment to a deceased teacher for "the moral and religious influence exerted
by her over the three hundred girls daily attending her school, and tell us
that it could not but have had a lasting effect on many of their susceptible
minds.-' Page 7. And yet in all these " early religious instructions, religious
impressions, and religious influence,'" essentially anti-Catholic, your petition-
ers are to see nothing sectarian ; hut if in giving the education which the
State requires, they were to bring the same influences to bear on the "sus-
ceptible minds of their own children, in favor, and not against, their own
religion, then this society contends that it would be sectarian !
Your petitioners regret that there is no means of ascertaining to what
extent the teachers in the schools of thisS,ociety carried out the views of
their principals on the importance of conveying " early religious instructions"
to the " susceptible minds " of tl>eir children. But they believe it is in
their power to prove, that in some instances, the Scriptures have been ex-
■ ])lained, as well as read to the pupils.
Even the reading of the Scriptures in those schools your petition.ers cannot
regard otherwise than as sectarian ; because Protestants would certainly con-
sider as such the introduction of the Catholic 'Scriptures, which are different
from theirs, and the Catholics have the same ground of objection when the
Protestant version is' made use of.
Your petitioners liave to state further, as grounds of their conscientious
objections to those schools, that many of the selections in their elementary
reading lessons contain matter prejudicial to the Catholic name and charac-
ter. The term " Popery " is repeatedly found in them. This term is known
and employed as one of insult and contempt towards the Catholic religion,
and it passes into tlie minds of children with the feeling of which it is the
outward expression. Both the historical and religious portions of the read-
ing lessons are selected from Protestant writers, whose prejudices against
the Catholic religion render them unworthy of confidence in the mind of
your petitioners, at least so far as their own children are concerned.
The Public School Society have heretofore denied that their books con-
tained any thing reasonably objectionable to Catholics. Proofs of the con-
trary could be multiplied, but it is unnecessary, as they have recently retracted
their denial, and discovered, after fifteen years' enjoyment of their monopoly,
that their books do contain objectionable passages. But they allege tliat they
have proffered repeatedly to make such corrections as the Catholic Clergy
might require. Your petitioners conceive that such a proposal could not be
carried into effect by the Public School Society without giving just ground
for exception to other denominations. Neither can they see with what con-
sistency that Society can insist, as it has done, on the perpetuation of its
monopoly, when the Trustees thus avow their incompetency to present unex-
ceptionable books, without the aid of the Catholic, or any other Clergy.
They allege, indeed, that with the best intentions they have been unable to
ascertain the passages which might be offensive to Catholics. "With their
intentions, your petitioners cannot enter into any question. Nevertheless,
they submit to your Honorable Body, that this Society is eminently inoom-
PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. 105
petent to the superintendence of public education, if tliey could not see tliat
the following passage was unfit for the public schools, and especially unfit to
be jilaoed in the hands of Catholic children.
Tliey will quote the passage as one instance, taken from Putnam's Sequel,
p;ige 266 :
" Huss, John, a zealous reformer from Popery, who lived in Bohemia,
t Hoards the close of the fourteentk, and heginning of the fifteenth centuries.
He was hold and persevering ; hut at length, trusting himself to the deceitful
Cathulie^. he was hy them hrought to trial, condemned as a heretic, and hurnt
at the sUil-e.''''
The Public School Society may be excused for not knowing the histori-
cal inaccuracies of this passage ; but surely assistance of the Catholic
Clergy could not have been necessary to an understanding of the words
" deceitful," as applied to all who profess the religion of your petitioners.
For these reasons, and others of the same kind, your petitioners cannot,
in conscience, and consistently with their sense of duty to God, and to
their offspring, intrust the Public School Society with the oiHce of giving
'■ aright direction to the minds of their children." And yet this Society
claims that office, and claims for the discharge of it the Common School
Funds, to which your petitioners, in common with other citizens, are con-
tributors. In so far as they are contributors, they are not only deprived
of any benefit in return, but their money is' employed to the damage and
detriment of their religion, in the minds of their own children, and of
the rising generation of the community at large. The contest is between
the guarantied rights, civil and religious, of the citizen on the one hand,
and the pretensions of the Public School Society on the other ; and whilst
it has been silently going o^ for years, your petitioners would call the
attention of your Honorable Body to its consequences on that class for
whom the benefits of public education are most essential — the children of
the poor.
This class (your petitioners speak only so far as relates to their own
denomination), after a brief experience of the schools of the Public School
Society, naturally and deservedly withdrew all confidence from it. Hence
the establishment by your petitioners of schools for the education of the
poor. The expense necessary for this, was a second taxation, required not
by the laws of the land, but by the no less imperious demands of their
conscience.
They were reduced to the alternative of seeing their children growing
up in entire ignorance, or else taxing themselves anew for private schools,
whilst the funds provided for education, and contributed in part by them-
selves, were given over to the Public School Society, and by them employed
as has been stated above.
Now your petitioners respectfully submit, that without this confidence,
no body of men can discharge the duties of education as intended by the
State, and required by the people. The Public School Society are, ind
have been at all times, conscious that they had not the confidence of the
poor. In their twenty-eighth report, they appeal to the ladies of New
York to create or procure it, by the " persuasive eloquence of female
kindness ;" page 5. And from this they pass, on the next page, to the
more efficient eloquence of coercion under penalties and privations to be
visited on all persons, " whether emigrants or otherwise," who being in the
circumstances of poverty referred to, should not send their children to
some " public or other daily school." In their twenty- seventh report,
pages 15 and 16, they plead for the doctrine, and recommend it to public
tavor by the circumstance that it will affect but " few natives." But why
should it be necessary at all, if they possessed that confidence of the poor,
106 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
without which they need never hope to succeed ? So well are they cori
vinced of this, that no longer ago than last year, they gave up all hope ot
inspiring it, and loudly call for coercion by " the strong arm of tlie cml
power " to supply its deficiency. Your petitioners will close this part ot
their statement with the expression of their surprise and regret that gen-
tlemen who are themselves indebted much to the respect which is properly
cherished for the rights of conscience, shonld be so unmindful of the same
rigiits in the case of your petitioners. Many of them are by religious
principle so pacific that they would not take up arms in the defence of
the liberties of their country, though she should call them to her aid ; and
yet, they do not hesitate to invoke the "strong arm of the civil power"
for the purpose of abridging the private liberties of their fellow-citizens,
who may feel equally conscientious.
Your petitioners have to deplore, as a consequence of this state of
things, the ignoi-ance and vice to which hundreds, nay thousands of their
children are exposed. They have to regret, alsQ, that the education which
they can provide, under the disadvantages to which they have been sub-
jected, is not as efficient as it should be. But should your Honorable
Body be pleased to designate their schools as entitled to receive a just
proportion of the public funds which belong to your petitioners in common
with other citizens, their schools could be improved for those who attend,
others now growing up in ignorance could be received, and the ends of the
Legislature could be accomplished — a result which is manifestly hopeless
under the present system.
Your petitioners will now invite the attention of your Honorable Body
to the objections and misrepresentations that have been urged by the Pub-
lic School Society to granting the claim of your petitioners. It is urged
by them that it would be appropriating money raised by general taxation
to the support of the Catholic religion. Your petitioners join issue with
them, and declare unhesitatingly, that if this objection can be established
the claim shall be forthwith abandoned. It is objected that though we
are taxed as citizens, we apply for the benefits of education as " Catholics."
Your petitioners, to remove this difBculty, beg to be considered in their
application in the identical capacity in which they are taxed — ^viz. : as citi-
zens of the commonwealth. It has been contended by the Public School
Society, that the law disqualifies schools which admit any profession of.
religion, from receiving any encouragements from the School Fund. 'Your
petitioners have two solutions for this pretended difficulty. 1. Your peti-
tioners are unable to discover any such disqualification in the law, which
merely delegates to your Honorable Body the authority and discretion of
determining what schools or societies shall be entitled to its bounty.
2. Your petitioners are willing to fulfill the conditions of the law so far as
religious teaching is proscribed during school hours. In fine, your petition-
ers, to remove all objections, are willing that the material organization of
their schools, and the disbursements of the funds allowed for them, shall
be conducted, and made, by persons unconnected with the religion of
your petitioners, even the Public School Society, if it should please your
Honorable Body to appoint them for that purpose. The public may then
be assured that the money will not be applied to the support of the Catho-
lic religion.
It is deemed necessary by your petitioners to save the Public School So-
ciety the necessity of future misconception, thus to state the things wliioh
are not petitioned for. Tlie members of that Society, who have shown
themselves so impressed with the importance of conveying tlieir notions of
" early religious instruction " to the " susceptible minds " of CathoHc children,
can have no objection that the parents of the children, and teachers in whom
PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS. 107
the parents have confidence, should do the same, provided no law is violated
thereby, and no disposition evinced to bring the children of other denomi-
nations within its influence.
Your petitioners, therefore, pray that your Honorable Body will be pleased
to designate, as among the schools entitled to participate in^ the Common
School Fund, upon complying with the requirements of the law, and the
ordinances of the corporation of the city — or for such other relief as to your
Honorable Body shall seem meet — St Patrick's School, St. Peter's School,
St. Mary's School, St. Joseph's School, St. James' School, St. Nicholas'
School, Transfiguration Church School, and St. John's School.
And your petitioners further request, in the event of your Honorable Body's
determining to hear your petitioners, on the subject of their petition, that such
time may be appointed as may be most agreeable to your Honoraljle Body,
and that a full session of your Honorable Board be convened for that purpose.
And your petitioners, &c.
THOMAS O'CONNOR,
Chairman.
GREGORY DILLON,
ANDREW CABRIGAN,
PETER DUFFY,
Vice- C/iairmen.
B. O'CONNEE,
James Kelly, J- Secretaries.
J. M'LoroHLiN,
Of a general meeting of the
Catholics of the City of New
York, convened in the school-
room of St. James' Church,
Sept. 21, 1840.
«
Meeting in the Basement of St. James's Church,
October 5th, 1840.
On Monday evening, Oct. 5th, the Catholics orthis city again
met in the basement of St. James's Church, in great numbers, by
adjournment of the meeting of that day fortnight, from -nrhich a
memorial had been sent to the Board of Aldermen, setting forth their
claim to a portion of the Common School Fund for the education
of Catholic children. Thomas O'Connor, Esq., was again called
to the chair, and the Secretaries were also re-elected.
LOS AECHBISHOP HUGUES.
Jasees McKeon, Esq., one of the committee appointed to present
the memorial to the Common Council, reported that they had dis-
charged the duties assigned to them, and that it was highly probable
that an early day' ■\\ould be fixed to hear the arguments of the
Catholics and those that opposed their claim.
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then presented himself and was
received with enthusiastic plaudits. He said the question was now
in the hands of those whom the Legislature had appointed to dis-
pose of the Common School Fund ; they had presented their claim
to that body with confidence, but it was not to be supposed that
their demand would be granted without opposition ; it was not cer-
tain they would be conceded at all. Nevertheless they had taken
the only means worthy of their purpose, by applying with confi-
dence and with firmness and with determination to those having in .
the first instance the power to apply a remedy to the evil of which
Catholics complain. The question as it will define itself before that
Board, when stripped of all the mystification in which their oppo-
nents had enveloped it, was an exceedingly simple one. It will be
a question whether it was the intention of the Legislature of the
State of New York to fix on the population of this city, and to sup-
port by taxation reaching to every citizen, a system of education
from which one-fifth of the population can derive no benefit? for he
thought he might say that Catholic children formed one-fifth of those
who were subject to this taxation. And if this system is to be so
constituted, as they found it to be, that Catholics iu their con-
sciences cannot allow their children to participate in its benefits,
then the question will be were they excluded or not, by an act of
the Legislature ? It is plain they wexe not, unless indeed the Legis-
lature intended that they should p.iy for education and receive no
benefit in return. Thai the Legislature did not intend — that it could
not have intended ; and there^re between the act of the Legislature
and the schoolmaster there must be some inquiry to pervert the
stream of justice. [Applause.] The objections that have been raised
by the Public School Society are objections which sound alarmingly,
in the eaf, and which from circumstances which are easily accounted
for, are apt to turn the judguients of even well-disposed men off
their equilibrium— he alluded to the clamor of sectarianism, and that
Catholics wish Sivil money to be appropriated to the jmrposes of
religion. _ The sound was calculated to alarm, but it required only
the exercise of common sense to dissolve these objections into thin
air, for Catholics wanted no money from the State of New York for
purposes of religion, but for the purpose for which it was claimed
from them — for the purposes of education in the strict sense of the
term. The education the Catholics were told was ready — the foun-
tain flows constantly, but care was taken to dilute the current before
it reached them, so that they could not taste it. [Applause.]
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 109
They were told the doors were open to them ; they knew they
were, but if they entered they Avent in to learn to live in ignorance
of all that was sacred and honorable in the Catholic name ; if they
entered they knew it was to have Protestant persons and Protestant
writers brought up for their admiration ; it was to make their chil-
dren familiar with things that were not theirs, -and to leave them in
utter ignorance of everything Catholic, unless it was to bring them
in to grace some tragic incident and they were only brought in then
as executioners. There were some respectable Catholic writers,
though perhaps their opponents knew it not, that Avrote with flow-
ing pens in the departments of history, morals, legislation, and gen-
eral literature, but from the books put into the hands of their chil-
dren in these schools they knew it not," but they did know about
Cranmer's execution, and the betrayal by the deceitful Catholics of
John Huss ; and if it were not for the purpose of bringing them in
thus, their children would not know that Catholicism was older than
Mormonism. [Laughter.] He had been exceedingly amused on
looking at the manner the opponents of their claim maintained their
exclusive right to the money which Catholics contributed in common
with other citizens ; but with a great deal of talent and a great deal
of confidence in the prejudices of the community, to Avhich they ap-
pealed, still it was difficult for them to make out a clear case, even
to satisfy those prejudices. He would look at the system as it is.
They were told that the state intended to exclude religion and
make the fund applicable solely to civil purposes — solely to secular
education — very well. If they excluded all religion then they bring
up the children like heathens, and they banish Christianity and leave
to infidelity the whole benefit of this system of education. And he
did not think it probable that the Christians of New York — that the
Protestants of New York — would raise a fund for education from
which only infidelity could receive the benefit. That was one
ground. But then they were told again that religion was not ex-
cluded from instruction. If they then have taught religion how
have they been able to go before the Common Council and ask for
money? Had Catholics less right than the celebrated body of
Quakers ? And if the office of instructors was to be conceded at all
to whom did it belong ? Did it become Catholics to be the instruc-
tors of Protestant children, or Protestants to become the instructors
of Catholic children ? Surely if it was a crime ^t all it must be a
greater crime in the managers of the present schools than in Catho-
lics to teach religion to Catholic children ; and it was only in this
way that they could throw the whole weight of the charge of giv-
ing instruction on infidels, so that it carried water on both shoul-
ders. Before the Common Council their opponents were scrupulous
to a nicety, from a fear that its money should go to encourage and
maintain religion; but they (the Catholics) went in the name of
relio-ion and conscience which did not allow them to educate their
children in these schools ; and because they went in the name of
conscience they were told, Oh, the fund is intended for civil educa-
110 AEOHBISHOP HUGHES.
tion, and if you allow a penny to go for the support of religion, yott
violate the charter, for it says so and so. Then we (Catholics)
charge them with infidelity. And how do they answer ? They say
Catholics give religious instruction. Do they (the Trustees of the
Public Schools) not admit that they do likewise m their report ?
And that shows that they are aware of the importance of early re-
ligious instruction ; but they say that none but what is general in
its character is given under their charge ; so that while the doctors
are disputing about what is religion, the managers of these schools
have no difficulty in determining at once. It is a pity the commu-
nity does not send its difficulties to the Public School Society for
they can soon decide what religion is. Does not each sect contend
that its doctrines are purely Scriptural ? And do not the others
dispute it? But here the Trustees of the Public School Society de-
cide for them at once ; and while they contend, and contend truly,
that the State has provided that none of this money should go for
the purposes of religion, they have a religion of their own made up,
as they say, from what is Scriptura^ When Catholics go before
Council and ask for their proportion of this fund, " Oh," says the
School Society, "it is provided only for secular education." But is
that their own practice ? They have one reply for Catholics and
another for Protestants ; they have piety enough not to wish infi-
delity to ha^e the predominance, and to please the Protestants they
introduce religion— Scriptural religion as they call it — and when
Catholics find fault with them and wish to teach their own children,
they say that the introduction of religion into the schools will forfeit
all right to it, for it was not intended or designed for religious pur-
poses. In their report and remonstrance to the petition of Catho-
lics they say, " this fund is purely of a civil character." If so it
means that it is intended to teach children to read, and write, and
the mathematics ; and there is not much religion in these sciences :
but they are not so careful to abstain from rehgion, for religion is
religious instruction, and that they give in their own way and thus,
in the expenditure of this money, which is appropriated to civil
instruction, they contradict themselves ; and we shall see how they
get out of the contradiction.
They knew they had done this from the cpmmencement, and the
first sound of alarm came from themsehes. They said, " Oh, there
is so much prejudice in the community !" and if Catholics were
timid, they might be crushed down by that fear. But if there was
prejudice, let its abutments be taken away, so that nothing but
truth would remain ; and if, \vla\\e their claim was based on truth,
knowing the wrong, it was still inflicted, let it be on the record,
that the world might know that Catholics were oppressed without
any ground of oppression. [Applause.] He said this because the
gentlemen were going from one point to another in their statements
from time to time of what was the true ground on which the right
of the citizen was based. There is in this country the principle
that no man should suffer for the free exercise of his freedom of
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. Ill
conscience ; that no man should suffer, in his person or in his repu-
tation, though the liw cannot arrest the pen of the bigotted slan-
derer, yet that is the spirit of the law that no man shall be tempo-
rarily held accountable for those things which relate to his eternal
destiny, for they were things between man and his God, and there-
fore the rights of conscience were sacred and inviolate. Bat if that
were the case, how can it be insisted on that Catholics shall violate
their rights of conscience at the risk of eternal consequences ? How
could it be pretended that Catholics could submit to a system about
which they were not consulted ? And how was it that the support-
ers of the existing system could insist that Catholics were wrong,
and that they were right ? Now, since conscience cannot be bent
or modified to suit the system. Catholics hoped to cause such a
modification of the system that it would suit the consciences of all.
[Applause.] That was the ground on which Catholics stood. But
they were told that Catholics held it to be an essential part of edu-
cation that the Catholic religion and dogmas should be taught.
They knew that schools were supported by the State- for the pur-
pose of imparting that part of secular knowledge that would be ad-
vantageous. But they did not believe it was designed by the State
to establish a system of teaching by which all that was good would
be extinguished in the process. They did not desire the public
money to be expended in the teaching of their dogmas, but they
also did not wish to see it expended in th6 support of a system by
which the bud of faith would be nipped which was springing up in
the hearts of Catholic children. But then they were told that Cath-
olics might teach their children after school hours, and on the sev-
enth day. But, after six days' teaching in these schools, every one
must be well aware how feeble will be the impressions of religion ;
how feeble will be the instructions of the pastor to a child that has
imbibed the prejudices which the lessons of the school were calcu-
lated to create ; how feeble would be the admonition ; how feeble
the inculcation of the dogmas of their faith, when the child was
already biased against it by the lessons he was taught, by the asso-
ciations to which he was exposed, and by the lectures of the
teachers on the elucidation of the school lessons. Why, the child
■would be found to be half a Protestant before he was half a
scholar.
But then they were told that if this money were given to Cath-
olics, every other denomination would look for it too. And if they
did, he did not see that any great harm would result from it. If
any other denomination had the same scruples of conscience, he
should say immediately they were entitled to it ; but it did not ap-
pear that they had. They had proof in the remonstrances that were
sent in against the claim made by the Catholics, that they approved
of the present school system. They were satisfied with the system,
and their scholars were attending under it, while the children of
Catholics did not attend ; so that, by conceding the claim of the
Catholics, they, would have the same schools as before, with this
112 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
difference, that the children of Catholics that were no-pr without
education, or but partially educated, would have a chance, and the
ends of the Legislature would be carried out. But suppose it
would have the effect of breaking up the system, he did, not think
any great calamity would be produced by such a result, or any
great suffering or disaster to the country or to the community. But
the evils had been magnified, and in the pamphlet which had been
published they had spoken of the bickerings that would be pursued
^and they knew what they had been in other countries — that it
Avould lead to contention and strife, and civil war and bloodshed.
Well, but this fund was once divided, and there were no such con-
sequences. It should be a part of education in America, that men
should know the rights of conscience of others, and that they should
learn to respect them. But when they gather children of all de-
nominations together into these Common Schools, and under pre-
tence that if they are not so taught, they are liable to fight in
the street Avhen they meet, they lay down a principle different from
that inculcated as a par.t of the system. If they are taught tolei'^a-
tion — if they are taught that all men are not born to think alike —
that there are thousands of subjects on which they may differ, and
that religion is one on which they are not only at liberty, but are
justified and above all censure in fulfilling the dictates of their con-
sciences, then they grow up with a spirit of tolerance to others with
whom, when they are men, they have to mingle, and who differ -in
opinion from them. But when these principles of the schools are
insisted upon, is it not in fact proclaiming to their children, " Be-
ware of religion, or you will all get to quarrelling " — [laughter] — it
is not to be introduced, or you will get to civil war a-nd bloodshed,
as they did in Germany when they got into a thirty years' war 1
But thus it was with the public School Society ; they had not one
solid ground to take against the claim which the Catholics made.
But, to avoid any difficulty, the Catholics said, Give us our books
and teachefs in whom we have confidence, and let the School
Society itself be the guardian of our schools, and see that the money
be faithfully appropriated, and such instruction given as would
qualify the children to be good citizens ; and then, when their minds
and their intellects were stored and trained, and knowing their duty
to God and to their fellow-men, then it was they would have the
prospect of their children being good, and virtuous, and respect-
able citizens. So that, putting aside all these difficulties, the
question would present itself naturally and necessarily before the
Common Council and simply on these grounds: Were Catho-
lics, against their convictions, to be compelled to support and sub-
mit to a system which suited those gentlemen (the School Society),
who were not Catholics, and who had scarcely a feeling on this par-
ticular subject in conimon with Catholics ? Were they to insist
upon Catholics paying a tax from which, in the exercise of the
guaranteed rights of conscience, they could receive no benefit ? Or
were they prepared to relieve Catholics from the tax ? Or in a
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 113
word, if they will compel Catholics to pay the tax, seeing the diffi-
culties that exist, will they give to Catholics their proportion of the
money which the Legislature has set apart for that purpose ? The
question r^^uces itself to these simple jjoints : Free Catholics from
taxation for schools of any description, and they would stand ready
vith the money thus saved to help their own schools, and to devote
it to education amongst themselves. But if not, and it would be
impracticable, for no denomination could be exempted from a gen-
eral taxation. In the next place, would they allow Catholics to
have the benefit of education, without the necessity of violating
their consciences ; and if they would not, then there was no alterna-
tive ; they were Catholics, and it was a pity that their consciences
would not allow them to enjoy the system which suited others ; but
they were Catholics, and their consciences were not to be respected.
It would be impossible, on any other ground, to tteny their rights.
It might not be couched in that language, but it would be that in
substance : it could not be otherwise. Catholics were anxious for
education; and while the managers of these schools pretend that
they will give the education, what is the fact ? It is obvious, be-
fore their eyes, that where schools are open, and teachers are ready,
and money is expended, there are hundreds and thousands growing
up in the condition which the Legislature wished to remove. If
they are willing to educate Catholic children, why not show their
willingness ? If they were animated by a ijatriotic spirit, would
they not yield a little to what they call the prejudices of Catholics,
but which Catholics know to be right, to be the love of truth?
But those men would rather leave hundreds and thousands in per-
manent ignorance, than that one tile should be removed from those
palaces which they have built for their o\\-n children. That was the
condition of the question at this time. What would be the decision
of the tribunal before which it had to be discussed and decided
they knew not. They had reason to hope that it would be a just
one, a conscientious one, and a liberal one; bnt at the same time no
explanation, no pleading, no specious exertions on the subject could
ever reconcile them to a system which had done so much to destroy
their enjoyment of their religious rights as this has done. It was in
vain to say " amend the books ;" for if they were permitted to do it
this year by courtesy, next year there might be put in a set of cor-
porators that would put in again what they now took out. What
was courtesy? Why, they (the Catholics) might sit in judgment
on the books, and perhaps, when they had corrected them, their
corrections might be again corrected, and the books left as they
were before. What security, then could be given to Catholics for
the enjoyment of their rights ? And while their rights were denied
on grounds on which CathoHcs did not pretend to establish them ;
while it was pretended before the Council that Catholics would
teach religion, and therefore were disqualified, they did that them-
selves which they said they expected Catholics would do, and for
which they opposed the Catholic claim. They have introduced
114 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
religion, and it was impossible they could escape from the position
of adopting a cold water religion in theory, and yet in practice incul-
cating a religion to suit their own ideas in these schools. As well
and as lawfully might they adopt a system of education supported
by the State, which should recognize the system of any one denom-
ination, and disavow all other denominations. They told Catholics
they did not teach any particular religion ; then they had better
teach none at all, for any religion they could teach was far opposed
to that of Catholics, who did not recognize them as men fit to go
into the pulpit and teach their children. Let them teach those by
whom they were recognized as teachers, but not the children of
Catholics. He had made these remarks, as it were, as a kind of
brief review of the whole ground on which the question stood, so
that it might remain fixed on the mind of every one of them as a
simple point. The Catholics asked for nothing but what was their
right, and what was- just ; and if there was any other lightby which
it could be shown that their claim was unjust and not right, they
should have no disposition to prosecute it. But in the absence of
such conviction, they could not but feel, if their right was still
withheld from them, that it could be but for one reason, and that
was, that Protestant prejudice was more powerful than truth and
justice. [Applause.] But he feared not the issue. The question
had made great progress since it w&s elucidated by their public dis-
cussions, and now scarcely a man that he had spoken to, that was
competent to judge on the subject, that did not say, " Sir, you are
right ; there can be no objection to the concession of your claim."
But he knew there was in the less intellectual portion of the com-
munity a substratum of prejudice. He was aware, however, that
this was not the case among the enlightened and the liberal — among
men of high, and just, and enlarged, and patriotic views — and it
was from these that public opinion was alone worth accepting.
[Great and long-continued applause.]
Meeting in the Basement of St. James's Church,
October 19th, 1840.
An adjourned meeting of the Catholics was held in the basement
of St. James's Church on Monday evening, Oct. 19th, when the
officers of previous meetings were re-elected. The Right Rev.
Bishop Hughes was received on his entrance with the warmest ex-
pression of affectionate regard.
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes came forward amidst great and
general plaudits. He commenced by observing that there was no-
thing to alarm them in the conclusion at which some seem already
to have arrived, or respecting the course to be pursued by the tri-
bunal before which they had laid claim. There was nothino- in it to
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 115
alarm, and for himself there was nothing to surprise, because he had
obser^ ed as they had progressed on this question, and whilst they
had made some inroad on the advanced posts of pubUe opinion, here
and there, that the concentrated and monopolizing power which was
opposed to them had been gathering its strength, and had been pre-
paring to exert it to the utmost. They (the School Society) feel as
if the charm should be broken, the dazzling prospect on which their
eye had rested so long with complacency, the prospect of having
seventy thousand children for a few years longer to be moulded at
t*heir discretion, and of having a larger number — even hundreds of
thousands of dollars for the purpose of so moulding them, Avould
disappear from before them. Such a dazzling prospect as this was
enough to tempt men of their f)hiIanthropy to cling to the system
and that they do cling to it they were assured, for, counting on that
futurity they had multiplied schools, and they had not only rnulti-
plied schools but they had built other and more splendid edifices — •
he scarcely knew what to call them —
Mr. O'Connor (chairman) — Sessions houses.
The Bishop. Yes, sessions houses, for the purpose of legislating
into all future time for the education of the children of the citizens
of New York. This was evidence that they did count on this long
futurity of domination, and therefore it was not surprising that they
should cling with such tenacity to its perpetuation.
Now it had been his duty to examine the books used in these
schools, and whatever might be said hereafter, notwithstanding all
that they had printed, or all that they had authorized to be printed
by the Board of Assistant Aldermen, that there was nothing in their
books against which the Catholics could have any reasonable objec-
tion, he, in an examination of the books to ascertain whether that
statement was founded in truth, had found many things against
which Catholics had reasonable objections. But laying that aside,
while Catholics formed one-fifth portion of the citizens whose chil-
dren were to be l^ught in these schools, from the first to the last
their books did not contain a solitary sentence upon Catholic affairs,
nor one line from Catholic authors — not one sentence, not one essay
on morals, not one chapter of history, not one section of geography,
not a single line from the beginning to the end, as if CathoUcs from
the beginning of creation had been men who had not known how to
wield the pen, or to arrange ideas in a proper manner. And not
only was this the fact, not only was there this suppression — for he
might call it the suppression of the truth — and it was the suppression
of the brightest trait in their character, which would affect the mind
of their children, attach them to the creed of their fathefs, and make
them not ashamed of a creed which had produced some of the
brightest ornaments that ever did honor to human nature ; indepen-
dent of that science, he had in his hand a dialogue used in these
schools for the purpose of teaching their children to read, and to
practice them in elocution. It was a dialogue between Cortez the
conqueror of Mexico, and William Penn. both founders of colonies^
116 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES,
on the use of the sword, and the more honorable means of defence
for the colonies. They discuss the principles on which the colonies
were established, and then Coetbz says :
" It is blasphemy to say, that any folly could come from the fountain of wisdom.
Whatever is inconsistent with the great laws of nature, and with the necessary
state of human society, cannot possibly have been inspired by God. Self-defence
is as necessary to nations as to men. And shall particulars have a right which
nations have not ? True religion, William Penn, is the perfection of reason. Fa-
naticism is the disgrace, the destruction of reason.
Penn says, " Though what thou sayest should be true, it does not come well
from thy mouth. A Papist talk of reason I Go to the inquisition and tell them
of reason and the great laws of nature. They will broil thee as thy soldiers broiled
the unhappy Guatimozin I Why dost thou turn pale ? Is it at the name of the
inquisition, or the name of Guatimozin ? Tremble and shake when thou thinkest,
that every murder the inquisitors have committed, every torture they have inflicted
on the innocent Indians, is originally owing to thee. Thou must answer to God for
all their inhumanity, for all their injustice."
"^ Papist talk of reason /" There was a lesson for Catholic chil-
dren ; and yet the School Trustees, through the Assistant Aldermen,
told them there was really nothing in their books against which
they ought to have the least objection. Yes, they would impress the
minds of their children that Catholics are necessarily, morally, intel-
lectually, infallibly, a stupid race. Now he should like to know
what reason they had to give, in the introduction of their writers —
Robertson, Hume, and others — what reason they could have, when
they knew there were such a multitude of Catholic writers, to sup-
press even* the least occasional mention of Catholic writers. Was it
because Catholics had no men who had labored in the fields of science
to improve the human mind ? Now, though it might be a secret
to those gentlemen, there was no department of history or philoso-
phy in which the mind of a Catholic had not taken the lead ; and
the time was when they found the Catholic arm the strongest in
pushmg the Sun of Science up the heavens. Who had produced
works of theology like theirs (the Catholicai? In philosophy,
whether of mmd or matter, where were the books which for depth
of research, or extent of knowledge, equaled or approached the
mighty tomes produced by Catholics ? And at the period when
ancient civihzation was destroyed, when the edifice crumbled under
the mighty stroke of the Goth and the Hun, and when society was
dissolved, they found Catholic minds presiding over its recon-
struction, laying its foundations broad and deep, and doing every-,
thing calculated to improve the public mind. Who reduced a mass
^ rude characters into letters which we now call our alphabet?
W ft« i!. Jf T^"' "^ " thus gave a language to Europe by establish-
.Yig Its basis. Nay, more, after that, who introduced that most im-
portant branch of civilization, agriculture? It was the monks, by
whose industry and labor the reclaimed wastes became the " model
farms" of Europe, and from them agriculture spread
They heard much of free government and of Parliaments but was
that a Protestant invention ? No, it was a Catholic Tnven'tion;Z
THE SCHOOL QUESTlOISr. 117
it was copied from the Catholic Church. The first models of repre-
sentative government, and of dignified and noble parliaments, were
the councils of the Catholic Church, in which every part of that
church had its representative. Thence, then, the idea was borrowed,
w^hich has been the pride and boast of England and of this country
after her, of representative government. But he might speak also
of navigation. Who discovered the continent on which they now
lived ? Was it not a Catholic ? Who made the second voyage to
this continent, and stamped his name upon it ? Was it not a Cath-
olic ? — Americus Vespucius. Who made the first voyage round the
globe ? Was it not a Catholic ? And Catholics were the first to
visit both the East and the West Indies ; they traversed seas to
carry the knowledge of Jesus Christ to the ignorant, and they then
became acquainted with the physical position of diflfevent countries,
and they conveyed that knowledge to the world either in letters or
other documents, and added a mass of human knowledge which had
assumed a gigantic size before Protestantism first sprung out of the
earth. And while things of a less beneficial tendency were going
on in other parts of the globe, Catholic missionaries, 200 years ago,
penetrated this country and continued a chain round from Quebec to
the Mississippi. While persecution was going on in the North and
the South, with which Catholics had nothing to do, their free banner
waved over Maryland, where the rights of conscience were recog-
. nized. They went to the Indians, not to destroy but to convert, to
save, and civilize. And if we turn our eyes from these things to
others, we shall see those things which are calculated to reflect
honor on those who effected their accomplishment. When we see
the alleviation of the infirmities of human life, we naturally ask our-
sehes to whom the world was indebted for the act of mercy. Who
planned the structures and laid the foundation of those hospitals for
the afflicted, and asylums for the decrepid, aged, and the young and
exposed infant ? Were they not all introduced and established by
the benevolent spirits and the enlightened minds of the Catholics of
antiqiiity ? Turn your minds to other structures, and then ask who
laid the foundations of the universities ? Who originated the idea ?
Wlio .aided their establishment ? It was Catholics alone; and if
you blot out the benevolent institutions with which the earth is still
studded, for which the world is indebted to Catholics, you will
find but a few insignificant ones remaining. If you turn again from
these things to the men distinguished by their own intellect — to
warriors and legislators — to men distinguished by their eloquence,
by their scientific attainments, in jurisprudence, or in other stations
in public-life, where do you find models worthier of imitation than
those by whom the pages of Catholic history are adorned. Passing
again from these to the ornaments of ancient literature, of classic
(jreece and Rome, and while desolation and barbarism passed over
Europe with their trains of evils, who, by patient, persevering in-
dustry, gathered up the fragments of ancient literature to adorn the
human mind ? It was done by the labor of the calumniated monks.
118 AECHBISHOP HtTGHES.
Tos, you may turn your eyes on whatever side you please, and you
will find that Catholics have nothing of which to be ashamed. You
will find no reason for the suppression of all these things with which
Catholics can charge themselves, but you will find in every depart-
ment, if you take away the volumes Catholics have written, and the
mighty libraries they have collected, your shelves will_ present a
barren appearance. Why, we have the testimony of eniinent Prot-
estant scholars themselves, attesting the fact that one single order
alone — the order of Benedictines— did more than all the Protestants
togethei-. In every species of knowledge— in history, jurisprudence,
and canonical and civil law— in a word, in everything appertaining
to human knowledge, it was found that the great predominance
was due to Catholic labor and Catholic success ; and why then did
they not find one page to adorn these school-books from authors
like these. Again, where are there poets like Catholic poets?
Take from England the works of Catholic writers : take away her
Chaucer, and Spenser, and Shakspeare, and Dryden, and Pope, and
yo\i take away the cream of English literature. Then, if they
turned their minds from these things to others not so immediately
essential to the cultivation, but to the adornment of human life^
take the study of the mathematics — and who was the first to culti-
vate that study in the west of Europe ? Who invented and arrayed,
and introduced that science but the Monk Jerbert, afterwards Pope
Sylvester II. ; the same who introduced the first celestial globes.
Then, again, in architecture and its application to the construction
of bridges, which at one period of European history could not be
constructed without calling in the aid of some learned man from a
distant country, who was usually some humble monk who knew
how to throw the daring arch, to span the river, or to cross the other-
wise impassable valley. Take away from England even the archi-
tectural structures left by Catholics, and what would remain ? —
scarcely anything. Oxford would disappear, and the greater part
of Cambridge, and nothing would be left but St. Paul's, of which
Lord Kingsbury said, after seeing St. Peter's, it was scarcely fit for
anything but to be blown up by gunpowder. If they turned from
these things to inventions, they might ask, who invented the art of
printing ? A Catholic. Who originated that by which information
was sent round through every village and hamlet — the post-office?
A Catholic. Who invented the clock to tell what time of day it was ?
A Catholic. Wlio invented the compass to guide the mariner across
the trackless ocean ? A Catholic? What is it that Catholics have
not done? And if this is the history of this people, why was it
that these teachers despised them ? and why was it that not a line
fi-om Catholic authors was permitted in their books? And they
jiretended to be all impartiality and to possess feelings of the most
liberal and philanthropic character. But turn away from this again
to another thing. There are afflictions resting on the children of
sorrow, some of whom are deprived of sight, and the sunbeam falls
fo the earth in vain for them. Now it was a work of benevolence
THE SCHOOL QtrKSTION. 119
to discover eyes for these children of sorrow, and to place them at
the end of their fingers ; or, in other words, to enable them, by run-
ning their fingers over raised characters, to read with rapidity ; and
it is to a Catholic that the invention is to be attributed. Again,
there is another class, the deaf and dumb, who can neither hear nor
speak. Now, happily for them, there is an invention, which ema-
nated from a benevolent heart, by which they can communicate
thought, and for this they are indebted to a Catholic priest. The
language for the deaf and dumb was the invention of the Abbe
Ponza, a Benedictine of Spain.
Now if these gentlemen of the Public Schools would place Catho-
lics under a dark cloud, he saw no reason why they should not
penetrate that cloud, and cause some of the rays of their former
glory to return to them. It was then again the Abbe L'Eppe, who
on visiting two sisters thus afllicted, as a man of God, was himself
afflicted that he could not communicate to them the Chri^ian Reli-
gion. He began to move by signs, and continued to improve on his
attempt, until at Mngth he acquired the means of communicating
with the deaf and dumb with ease and rapidity.
Who was the founder of Sunday-schools ? It was Saint Charles
Borromeo — a Catholic. In a word, there is no department of
knowledge in which Catholics have not been distinguished. But to
go further, who discovered a quicker means of communication than
the railroad ? , It was not used so extensively in this country as in
some others, but it might be important even here, if an invasion
should be made of any part of our coast, to communicate information
to Washington and reeeiAe an answer back in less time than it could
be done by railroads. He would deserve a prize who should invent'
the means of sending information from Niagara to Washington and
receiving an answer back in six or seven hours. And yet the equiva-
lent of this had been done by a Catholic priest who invented the
telegraph. [Applause.] If they turned to music, who had brought
it to its present state by the perfection of instrumental music?
Who had taught the canvas to speak ? And who had given life and
animation to the cold marble ? Catholics. And all the boasted
superiority of Protestants was yet an infinite distance from the pro-
ductions of Catholics, and they Avere proud to distraction if they
succeeded in producing a tolerable copy of that which Catholics had
invented. [Applause.] He had thus endeavored to claim for Ca-
tholics that to which they were confessedly entitled. The gentle-
men of the public schools had not treated them fairly or honorably,
when they had thought proper to fill their pages for the instruction
of their children, from Hume and Robertson, and other Protestant
writers who were all opposed to the Catholics, and not given one
sentence from Catholic authors. But he would go now to another
point. They had said that there was nothing in their books to
which Catholics could object. Why, in the most delicate manner
[laughter] they teach that the ceremonies of the Catholic religion are
the remnants of idolatry — so slyly and so gently is it introduced,
120 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
[Laughter.] In " Conversations on Common Things," which were
used as reading lessons for their children, there occurred the tollow-
ing passages :
" D. What 13 frankincense ? it was burned in the Catholic church the day I was
there ; I suppose it is a kind of gum ? , ,„„„„
" M. It is an odoriferous substance, consisting of equal quantities ot ^mmy
and resinous particles : it is collected in a very impure state, and rednea alter
importation. We have the gum from Mount Lebanon and Arabia, also in great
quantities from the western coast of Africa. It was formerly burnt in all temples
of worship, and many Christians were put to death by the idolatrous Jews and Ro-
mans, for refusing to burn it before idols."
They would see the connection which children, whether Catholics
or Protestants, after reading this lesson would ever associate m their
minds. They would never see frankincense without associatmg
therewith the putting to death of Christians by " the idolatrous Jews
and Romans, for refusing to burn it before idols." But take an-
other. They had now, after the assertion of these gentlemen that
they did not teach religion, the proclamation that Catholics ought
not to be allowed any portion of this money because they would
teach religion. Now they were told that . the teachers were not
allowed to give instruction in religion by way of explanation of the
reading lessons, but they had a sermon printed at the end of the
text, and svch a sermon. [Laughter.] The book entitled " Popular
Lessons" contained a chapter on " The Ten Virgins," and the mys-
terous words in that lesson were explained to the children at the
end of the chapter imder the title of "explanations." T4ie first
word explained was the word " parable ;" and this was the explana-
tion, " A parable is sometimes called a comparison ; it shows one
thing or circumstance to resemble some other." [Laughter.] The
next was the word " virgins ;" and what did they suppose that
meant? " immarried women," according to the Public Schools.
[Laughter.] After some other explanations they go on to the word
" marriage," and here is the explanation :
" Marrinr/r, — When a man and woman agree to live together all their lives, and
to be called Husband and Wife, their agreement is called marriage. The wife takes
her husband's name, and goes to his house ; and whatever belongs to one of them
belongs to the other also.
" When the man takes the woman for his wife, the ceremony of the occasion is
called a weddinr/. At weddings, the friends of the couple to be married often as-
semble, and most commonly the company are very merry and happy together.
The marriage ceremony is different in different countries, and among people of
different sects."
But here was another, and he confessed he considered it of a
much more serious character. It was a chapter introduced for the
instruction of their children on " The Character of Christ." Now
those gentlemen, of all the men he ever knew, were, to his mind, the
most inconsistent, and yet the most complacent in their inconsistency.
They were first told that those gentlemen, did not teach religion in
their schools; and then again, oh yes, they said, we do, but it is the
morality of all sects — a kind of religion which all agree in, so that
nobody is offended. [Laughter.] Now here was a chapter from
THE SCHOOL QUESTION, 121
tlie Bishop of London, from wliich these men would teach their
(Catholic) children the character of Jesus Christ. He would read
a passage, and if Rosseau or Voltaire would not give a character
more worthy of him, he did not know what they could write. It
was certainly all panegyric, but still it suppressed the true part of
his character, while it shoirtfed that he was not a Philosopher like
Socrates, nor a Prophet like Mahomet.
" lie was not^ only free from every failing, but he possessed and practiced every
imaginable virtue. Towards his heavenly Father he expressed the most ardent
love, tlie most fervent, yet rational devotion ; and displayed in his whole conduct
the most absolute resignation to his •will, and obedience to his, commands.
" His manners were gentle, mild, condescending, and gracious ; his lieart over-
flowed with kindness, compassion and tenderness to the whole human race. The
grpat employment of his life, was to do good to the bodies and souls of men. In
this all his thoughts, and all his time were constantly and almost incessantly
occupied.
" He went about, disposing his blessings to all around him, in a thousand dif-
ferent ways; healing diseases, relieving infirmities, correcting errors, removing
prejudices, promoting piety, justice, charity, peace, and harmony ; and crowding
into the narrow compass of his ministry, more acts of mercy and compassion, than
the longest life of the most benevolent man upon earth ever yet produced.
" Over his own passions he had the most complete command ; and though his
patience was continually put to the severest trials, yet he was never overcome,
never betrayed into any intemperance or excess, in word or deed ; ' never once
spake unadvisedly with his lips.'
" He endured the crudest insults from his enemies, with the utmost composure,
meekness, patience, and resignation ; displayed astonishing fortitude under the
most painful and ignominous death ; and to crown all, in the very midst of his tor-
ments on the cross, implored forgiveness for his murderers, in that divinely chari-
table prayer, ' Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'
"' Nor was his wisdom inferior to his virtues. The doctrines he taught were the
most sublime, and the most important, that were ever before delivered to mankind ;
and every way worthy of that God from whom he professed to derive them, and
whose Son he declared himself to be.
" His precepts inculcated the purest and most perfect morality ; his discourses
were full of dignity and wisdom, yet intelligible and clear ; his parables conveyed
instruction in the most pleasing, familiar, and impressive manner ; and his answers
to the many insidious questions that were put to him, showed uncommon quickness
of conception, soundness of judgment and presence of mind ; completely baflied all
the artifices and malice of his enemies ; and enabled him to elude all the snares
that were laid for him'.
" From this short and imperfecl sketch of our Saviour's character, it is eviden*-
that he was, beyond comparison, the wisest and the most virtuous person that ever
appeared in the world."
" His answers to the many insidious questions that were put to
hims, showed uncommon quickness of conception, ! — soundness of judg-
ment! and -presence of mind!" and so forth. Now he asked if that
was not a very liberal admission in favor of their blessed Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. He asked if a deist or an atheist could be
found in New York who would not give him the character which
these gentlemen would introduce to their children, and which would
almost degi'ade him to the condition of the Philosophers of Greece.
They praise him ! But it is with language the most insidious. They
give him credit for eluding all the snares of his enemies, but it is as
though they said, Snares were laid for him by his enemies, but he
122 AEOHBISHOP HUGHES.
was too cute for them. [Laughter.] And yet these men pretend
that they, and they alone, ought to monopolize the direction of the
mind of infancy. They pretend thalt they alone should take the con-
tribution of Catholics for so noble a purpose as that of education ;
become the guardians and directors of Catholic children ; and that
they alone are fitted to guard the heart, Vl^eh is of infinitely greater
importance than the welfare of the body.
These, then, were the men Avho were laboring to prove that there
was not any single denomination of Christians from which a Board
could be formed that was worthy to be confided in._ But he would
like to know if there was not a Christian denomination to be found
from which a Board could .be formed of equal respectability with
those gentlemen, and he did not wish to detract from their character.
It was a libel on the men Avho were conscientious in other faiths to
intimate that they were less capable or less honest than they (the
School Trustees). What reason, then, could be given for the interpo-
sition of these gentlemen between Catholics and their children ? for
claiming the right to extort on the one hand the expense of the edu-
cation, and then its administration, and in its administration to dilute
and render it good for nothing ? For himself, he had no care in
this matter ; but for the children of Catholics, as their Bishop, and
therefore their spiritual parent and protector, he had a conscientious
duty to discharge in the protection and vindication of their princi-
ples and their rights. He cared less for the money than for their
rights and principles. [Applause.] And what he said for Catholics
to-day, he would say for the Lutheran or the Quaker to-morrow, if
they had the same conscientious scrujDles. There was no law-
there could be no law in this country under any pretext, that could
compel them to violate the rights of conscience, whereby the very
existence of society itself in this country depends. He repeated,
as a matter of money, it was not so much a matter of importance,' as
it was as a matter of principle ; and for the Catholics, he proclaimed
it to the world, that as regarded tl\e Public Schools, there was an
end of all connection with them — The Uniox is Repealed.
[Great applause.] Wliat, then, was their future course ? It was that
they were obliged to do henceforward as they had done heretofore —
to educate their own children, after paying into the common treasury
the expense of doing so. They thereby saved their children's prin-
ciples, and if the gentlemen of the Public Schools deemed it any
glory to take the money of the Catholics, poor as many of them
were, and appropriate it to a partial system from which the Catho-
lics were excluded, let them enjoy the unenvied glory of doing so,;
but a conquest over their principles those gentlemen would not
obtain. [Applause.]
It remained, then, for them (the Catholics), to unite in soul in pro-
portion to the tenacity of purpose with which the School Society
cling to the existing system; and to show those gentlemen with
what perseverance and firmness they were determined not to submit
to injuries. So far as it depended on them (the Catholics), those
THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 123
gentlemen would find no acquiescence in a system, which, in the
conscience and judgment of every impartial man could not merit
approbation. They (the Catholics) had to develop their position to
the world, and to explain to the community at large the bearing of
this system upon them, for there were multitudes that did not com-
prehend it, and who saw nothing in it affecting their own religion'
to induce them to examine it. But when Catholics showed how it
pressed unequally on them, and on the principles of justice, on their
freedom of conscience, and on the liberty which they ought to possess
to give instruction to their own children, they would find friends and
supporters among those who had no sympathy with their religion.
He conceived it could not be otherwise. But all he begged of the
Public Council of the Board of Aldermen, was to treat them with
candor and frankness, and at once say yes, or no. This was all they
expected — as a matter of favor to be conferred on them, they did not
ask it, they claimed it as a right for which they had many prece-
dents. In Ireland the Presbyterians objected to the system pursued
by the British Government, and that government consulted those
objections to remove them ; and he would say, glory to those Pres-
byterians for stating their scruples.
Again, look at Lowell in their own country. The Catholics there
being unwilling to place their children under a system which they
conceived operated against their consciences, made known their ob-
jections to the superintendents of those schools ; and those superin-
tendents, on becoming acquainted with the facts, being themselves
men of education, without any desire to encroach on the rights, or
to get the shavings of the consciences of others — [laughter] — said to
the Catholics, Establish your own schools, select your own teachers,
and we will pay for them, provided you give education, for education
is what we want. IS'ow, cannot these men do that here, instead of
pursuing the course which they have pursued hitherto ? But if, on
the contrary, they say, Keep quiet, we know who you are, we will
tell them we are not afraid : the time when Penn told Cortez Catho-
lics could not reason, has gone by ; and now Cathohcs can reason ;
and when they were made to bear burdens which pressed more
heavily than was fair, and reasonable, and right, they would
tell those gentlemen that they would not submit to it. [Great
applause.]
There was one other subject to which it was his desire to call the
attention of the meeting. It was in reference to the opportunity to
be afforded them of stating their grievances to the Board of Alder-
men. It had been suggested to him by a gentleman very deeply in-
terested in the success of this question, that it might not be expedi-
ent for him (the Bishop) to appear in such a place on such an occa-
sion, for it was possible that some language might be used towards
him, which, though he might bear it with patience, might be painful
to others. On this question, he had replied, he was willing to give
up his own opinion, but at the same time he stated that he had no
apprehension of anything of that kind, or if anything of the sort
124 _ ABCHBISHOP HUGHES
should occur, it would have no effect on him personally, or on his
feelings. But he had no apprehensions on the subject, either on
questions of propriety or any other.
He, however, had considered whether he should not there be out
of place^and whether even in meetings like the present he was not;
but so vital and important did he consider the question, that he con-
ceived he could not be anywhere more in keeping with his character
as a bishop, than when lie stood before them, pleading the cause
of the poor and the oppressed. [Great applause.] And so near
was the question to his heart that he could bear insult from morning
till night. [Renewed applause.] Insult would have no other effect
on him than to make him cling still closer to that principle which
was to be acted upon in a few days, but the effect of which was to
be felt through years and years, through ages and ages, through
generations and generations, till the world shall be no more.
[Cheers.] For such a question he might venture to the farthest
boundaries of propriety — to the farthest limits which propriety
would allow a bishop to go. He was, howeVei', willing to submit
his opinion to the meeting. He should not consider himself out of
place there ; and he had nothing to dread on that occasion. [Great
applause.] He then passed a high eulogium on the character of
Mr. Francis Cooper, and on his firmness in refusing to take the oaths
prescribed for members of the Legislature, and when he conceived
them contrary to the right of conscience, and concluded by pro-
posing the addition of that gentleman to the committee deputed to
wait on the Board of Aldermen, to state the ground of their claim —
an addition which he considered valuable, inasmuch as Mr. Cooper
was familiar with the subject, having been himself connected with
the CommoB. School System.
SPEECH BEPOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 125
BISHOP HUGHES' GREAT SPEECHES
ON THE CLAIM OF THE CATHOLICS TO* A PORTION OF THE
COMMON SCHOOL FUND, BEFORE THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN
OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ON THURSDAY akd' FRIDAY,
THE 29th and 30iii OCTOBER, 1840.
On Thursday, the 39th October, 1840, the Board of Aldermen met m
special session, for the purpose of hearing the arguments of the Catholics
in favor of their claim to a separate portion of the Common School Fund,
and the School Society, and the Societies of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in opposition. The Board of Assistant Aldermen was present, by
invitation of the Board of Aldermen, to hear the discussion. The deep
interest which was felt in the question by the community generally was
exhibited by the dense crowd which filled the spacious halls long before
the doors of the Council Chamber were thrown open, and by the anx-
ious solicitude which was manifested to hear the debate.
Some time elapsed before the Aldermen and the gentlemen who were to
take part in the proceedings could obtain a passage through the mass of
human beings that struggled for admission, even with the aid of a body
of police officers, and great numbers of individuals were ultimately unable
to gain admission.
When the Board became organized, and some points of form had been
determined, it was agreed to hear the parties in the order in which their
I)etitions or remonstrances had been received by the Council — viz., first
the Catholics, then the Public School Society, and lastly the Societies of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, which were respectively represented by
the following Committees and Counsel : — The Catholics, by the Right Rev.
Bishop Hughes, the Very Rev. Dr. Power, Thomas O'Connor, Esq., Francis
Cooper, Esq., Dr. Hugh Sweeney, James McKeon, Esq., and James Kelly,
Esq. ; the School Society, by Theodore Sedgwick, Esq., and Hiram
Ketchum, Esq. ; the Methodist Episcopal Churches, by the Revs. Dr.
Bangs, Dr. Bond, and George Peck.
Before entering on the discussion, the reading of the petition of the
Catholics and the remonstrances from the other Societies here represented,
was called by the Alderman of the Sixteenth "Ward, and they were road
accordingly by Mr. John Paulding, the Reader to the Board.
126 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose to address the Board in behalf of
th3 Catholics, and spoke as follows:
Gentlemen of the Board of Aldermen, — Unaccustomed as I am to address a
body of gentlemen such as "l see here before me, I may not always be correct
in the manner of my address : I hope, therefore, that any mistakes of mine
may be imputed by this Honorable Board to my inexperience. I would also,
on the threshold of the subject, observe, that in no part of the discussion on
this question, so far as it has gone, am I conscious of having imputed to any
gentleman who is opposed to the claim in which I have so deep an interest,
any motive or design of a sinister character. I am sorry, therefore, that the
Public School Society should have been pleased to refer to the language of our
■ document as though imputation had thereby been cast upon their motives. I
am sure if they again review our documents they will not find one sohtary
instance of any imputation dishonorable to them personally as gentlemen. We
speak of their system apart from themselves ; and we speak of it with that
freedom wtiich it is the right of American citizens to speak of the public actions
and public proceedings of public men ; but again will I repeat, that in no
instance to my knowledge has there been imputed to those gentlemen one
solitary motive, one single purpose unworthy of their high standing and their
respectable character. They have alleged, in some of their documents, that we
charge them with teaching infidelity ; but we have not done so. We charge it
&s the result of their system, not that they are actively engaged in teaching
infidelity ; and not only do we not say this, but we interpose the declaration,
that we do not believe such to be their intention, but that the system has gone
beyond their intention. Yet, after this, they ascribe to themselves these impu-
tations, and they cap their salvo by saying, that even the authors of the address
shrink from a picture of their own coloring — a picture which they not only
charge that we have drawn of them, but also of all other classes and denomi-
nations of our fellow-citizens. Now, I venture to repeat, that in no instance
have we imputed to them motives which can reflect on them as honorable men.
I make these observations in the commencement, simply to show how much
has been written of the petitioners on assumptions which have no foundation
on any thing that has been written or said by us. I know well the Public
School Society is an institution highly popular in the city of New York ; but I
should be sorry 'to suppose that those gentlemen would permit themselves to
interpose that popularity between them and the justice which we contend for
when we seek that to which we believe we have a legal right. At the same
time it is proper for me, at the commencement, to clear away another objection
which an attempt has been made, in both the remonstrances thiat have been
read, to oppose to the exceedingly simple principle for which we contend.
The attempt has been made, (and you will perceive the whole document, which
issued as a Report from the Board of Assistant Aldermen, as well as the
remonstrances of the Public School Society, ^nd the Methodist Episcopal
Church, is based on the same false assumption,) to assume false premises in
this matter, which are, that we want this money for the promotion of the
ecclesiastical interests of our Church. Now, if these Societies wish to enter
their remonstrances against our petition they should first read the language in
which we have urged our claim, and if they had, they would have saved
themselves the trouble, in my opinion, of reasoning on arguments which are but
figments of their own creation and no proposition of ours. Have not we distinctly
stated not only what we want, but, to guard them against accusing us of what
wo do not want, have we not said that we do not want the public money to
promote ecclesiastical interests ? for to this money, for such a purpose, we have
no right. And, also, have we not further stated, that if it can be shown that
we want the money for this purpose, that we will abandon our claim— that if
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 127
it can be shown that we want it for sectarian interest we will relinquish.it
altogether ? "We have said in the first place :
"Your petitioners will now invite the attention of your honorable body to the objections
and misrepresentations that have been urged by the Public School Society to gnvntinf,
the claim of your petitioners. It is urged by them that it would be appropriating
money raised' by general taxation to trie snppo;"t of the Catholic religion. Your
petitioners join issue with them, and declare unhesitatingly, that if this objection can
be established the claim shall forthwith be abandoned. It is objected that though we
are taxed as citizens, we apply for the benefits of education as ' Catholics,' Your
petitioners, to remove this difficulty, beg to be considered in their application in the
identical capacity in which they are taxed, viz. : as citizens of the commonwealth.
It has been contended by the Public School Society, that the law disqualilies
.schools which admit any profession of religion from receiving any encouragementa
from the school fund. Your petitioners have two solution^ for this pretended difficulty.
First. Your petitioners are unable to discover any such disqualification in law,
which m.erely delegates to your honorable body the authority and discretion of
determining what schools or societies shall be entitled to its bounty. Secondly. Your
petitioners are willing to fulfill the conditions of the law so far as religious teaching is
proscribed during school hours. In fine, your petitioners, to remove all objections, are
willing that the material organization of their schools, and the disbursements of the
funds allowed for them, shall be conducted and made, by persons unconnected with
*he religion of your petitioners, even the Public School Society, if it should please your
honorable body to appoint them for that purpose. The public may then be assured
that the money will not be applied to the support of the Catholic religion.
" It is deemed necessary by your petitioners to save the Public School Society the
necessity of future misconception, thus to state the things which are not petitioned
for."
Yet, notwithstanding this clear and simple language, you perceive both the
remonstrances, of the School Society and the Episcopal Methodists, go on this
false issue, that we want this money for sectarian and illegal purposes! Our
language could not be plainer than it was on this point, and yet there has been
uncharitableness enough in these societies to assert the contrary. I have
deemed it necessary to make this explanation at the commencement to impress
your minds, gentlemen, with what it is we seek and what it is. we seek not,
because I know a deal may be done towards a proper elucidation of this subject
by preserving its simplicity. The remonstrants warn you, gentlemen, against
giving money for sectarian purposes. We join them in that admonition. We
contend that we look in honesty and simplicity alone for the benefits of educa-
tion ; and as members of the commonwealth and as Catholics we seek but that
which we believe to be just, and legal, and right.
I shall now, gentlemen, review very briefly both the documents, because they
submit to your Honorable Body the grounds on which that claim, which we
believe to be just, is opposed. After the introduction of that from the Public
School Society, we find in the second paragraph the following passages :
" The subject has, however, been so fully elucidated and ably argued, in documents
now among the public records, that your remonstrants cannot Tiope to shed any
additional fight upon it. They therefore beg leave to refer your honorable body to
Document No. 80, of the Board of Assistant Aldermen, as containing the reasons on
which your remonstrants would rely, in opposing the applications of religious societies
for a portion of the school fund. It is believed that no decision of the City Government
ever met with a more general and cordial response in the public mind."
Yes, it may well be so believed, for the reason that that whole document wSnt
on a false issue, and therefore it was thus believed. But if I prove, as I shall,
that the premises had no foundation in reality, then the arguments founded
thereon must fall to the ground, for they were but castles in the air. It
proceeds : ' '
" As the Roman Catholics very recently issued an address to the people of this City
and State, ui'ging at large their reasons for a separate appropriation of school money,
to which your remonstrants have replied, they now present copies of said documents,
which they respectfully submit to your honorable body, as containing matter relevant
to the question under consideration. The petition of the Roman Catholics now pending
presents, nevertheless, some points which your remonstrants feel called upon to notice.
128 AECHBISHOP HUGHES,
B7 a misapprehension of the law in relation to persons who are conscientiously opposed
to bearing arms, which is applicable to persons of every religious persuasion, they
attempt to adduce an argument in favor of the prayer of their petition, and say that
theyi only claim the benefit of the same principle in regard to the education of their
children. Now the facts are, that the law imposes a fine, or tax as an equivalent for
personal military services, and in the event of there being no property on which to
levy, subjects such persons to imprisonment, and numbers are every year actually
confined in the jails of this State."
Now I conceive the illustration there referred to was a strong one. The
parents and guardians of tender offspring have a right connected with their
nature by God himself in His wise Providence, and they should be shown a
strong reason for transferring it to others. And I adduced it as an illustration
and as a strong one — why ? Because the defence of the country is a thing
connected with self-existence and preservation ; and yet, so tender is the genius
of this happy country of the rights of conscience, it dispensed with all those
who had religious scruples from a compliance with the law, and changed it
into a small tine, whereby the right was shown, and also the disposition to
waive it.
" With the religious opinions of the denomination of Christians referred to, your
remonstrants have nothing to do. In opposing the claims of the Roman Catholic, and
several other churches, to the school money, they have confined their remarks to broad
general grounds alike applicable to all; but the petitioners have seen fit to single out
a religious society by name, and intimate or indirectly assert, not only that their pecu-
liar religious views lead to insubordination and contempt of parental authority, but
that the Trustees of the Public Schools, who are of this denomination, by their numbers
or the ' controlling influence' they exert, have introduced the * same principle' into the
public schools, and that their effects are manifested in the conduct of the Catholic
children who have attended them."
Now I am exceedingly surprised that those gentlemen should go so far from
the text to draw reproach upon themselves. We said nothing to authorize
this language. We simply stated the fact ; we mentioned the circumstance of
the controlling influence of those holding peculiar sectarian views ; but we did
not draw the conclusion, whether the insubordination of the children of our
poor people was the result of the principles taught in the schools or of a want
of domestic influence. And yet these gentlemen have gone on to draw upon
themselves an imputation of which we respectfully disclaim the authorship.
They proceed :
" Your remonstrants feel bound, therefore, in reply,. to state that of the one hundred
citizens who compose the hoard of trustees, there are only twelve of the denomination
thus traduced " and of these six or seven accepted the situation by solicitation of
the board, for the purpose of superintending the management of the colored schools, to
which object they nave almost exclusively confined themselves."
Now I should be one of the last to detract from the raferits of this denomi-
nation. Some of them I have known personally, and others by their history,
and my opinion has always been of them that they are among the foremost
in every benevolent act and social virtue, and to lend their arm to strengthen
the weak and the oppressed ; and therefore it is no reproach to them that they
take the lead in this work of benevolence of which I give them credit. They
go on to say :
'" Of the motive that induced this extraordinary portion of the petition, your remon-
strants will not trust themselves to speak,"
It might be recollected, gentlemen, if there were a leaning that way, it
was after the publication of the "Reply" to our "Address," which, though
it has the name, is no rej>ly to our arguments. It is not an answer; but in
it they take the occasion to sneer at us, as I shall soon have occasion to
show; yet I may here observe, that it would have been better if they had
addressed themselves to the principles of eternal justice on which we rest.
" Of so much of it," they add, " as convevs an idea that the Trustees who are of this
religious persuasion introduced, or attempt to introduce, into the public schools their
SPEECH BEFOKE THE CITY COUNCIL. 129
own peculiar opinions," we never charged that thej did; "they can only say that no
one of the numerous and serious charges brought against your remonstrants by the
petitioners, is more entirely destitute of foundation in fact. If a disposition existed in
any quarter to give a sectarian bias to the minds of the children, it will readily be seen
that the most successful method would be through the selection of teachers."'
"Why, there was no necessity for this vindication at all.
" In one of the documents now submitted to your Honorable Body, it is stated that, in
appointing teachers, no regard is had by the Trustees to the religious profession-of the
candidates, and that six or seven of the present number are Roman Catholics."
I have seen this statement figure ia almost every document of that Society,
and yet I have not heeu able to find "six or seven of the present number
who are Eoman Catholics:" and I doubt if they can be found, except they
are such Roman Catholics as w« see our children become after they have
been in these public schools ; that is. Catholics who have nij feelings in com-
mon with their church — Catholics who are ashamed of the name, because in
the school-books and from the teachers they hear of its professors only as
" Papists," and of the religion itself only as " Popery." It is such as these, I
fear, that pass as Catholics, though I only know of one who is worthy of the
name. "From an inquiry now made, it is found that only two of the teacii-
ers belong to the ' Society of Friends.' " And I don't suppose that better
teachers could be obtained anywhere, when confined within the limits pre-
scribed; .except they have the pinvilege to introduce religious instruction.
And without that it matters but little whether they are of the Society of
Friends or not. They continue :
" It is with regret that your remonstrants find themselves under the painful neces-
sity of saying that the petition of the Catholics contains garbled extracts and detached
portions of some parts of their annual reports in relation to religious instruction, and
so arranged and commented upon as to convey a meaning directly opposite to the one
intended and clearly expressed in the original documents."
Now, I will allow the reading of it, and if there are any garbled extracts
there, I will be the first to correct it. But I am surprised, when we quote
the words of their documents, that they should urge this charge. Let the
documents be read. I have no dread on this subject.
" The same means are resorted to in quoting the language of the Trustees, when
urging the importance of using measures for inducing the poor to have their children
educated. On different occasions, your remonstrants have suggested to tjie Common
Council the expediency of requiring, by legal enactment, the attendance at some * public
or other daily school' of the numerous 'Vagrant children who roam about our streets
and wharves, begging and pilfering;' and this is tortured in the Catholic petition into
a desire of ' abridging the private liberties of their fellow-citizena,' and an acknowledg-
ment, on the part of the Trustees, * that they had not the confidence of the poor.' "
Yet I should think, gentlemen, such a reluctance to attend their schools as
to make it necessary to apply for a legal enactment to procure first the
money and then to compel an attendance,"would show that they did want
that confidence. I know they have not the confidence of our body. Yes,
they have obtained two (enactments from the Oommftn Council, depriving
the parents in time of need — even when cold and starvation have set in upon
them — of public relief, unless the children were sent to these, or some other
schools. And I have seen them urging ladies, in their public document-, to
obtain their confidence by soothing words; and I have seen them urging
employers to make it the condition of employment. Yet, after all this, they
pretend that they have had the confidence of the poor. I do not say that
they have notmerited it according to their views: but I do not think they
should expect all mankind to submit to their views of the matter, to the
sacrifice of their own. They say :
" The records of the schools will demonstrate that the industrious and respectable
portions of the laboring classes repose entire confidence in the public school system
and its managers."
9
130 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
Then that portion in behalf of whom I stand here is not to be classed
with the " industrious and respectable 1" They then proceed to another
point :
" The subject of objectionable matter in the books used in the public schools is so
fully discussed in the papers now submitted to your honorable body, that little more
would seem to be called for under this head. Finding their strenuous and long-con-
tinued efibrts to induce the Catholic clergy to unite in an expurgation of the books un-
availing, the trustees commenced the work without them, and it is now nearly com-
pleted. If anything remains to which the petitioners can take exception, no censure
can, by possibility, attach to your remonstrants ; and the trustees assert with confi-
dence, that if any has escaped them, there is now less matter objectionable to the
Roman Catholics, to, be found in the books used in the public schools, than in those of
any other seminary of learning, either public or private, within this State."
Now they could not adopt a worse test, for I defy you to find a readinc;
book in either public or private seminary, that in respect to Catholics is
not full of ignorance. Not a book. For if it were clear of this it would
not be popular ; and if they refer to this, then they refer to a standard
which we repudiate. But it must be remembered those people can send
their children to those schools or keep tliem at home. They are not taxed
for their support. But here we are ; it is the public money which is here
used to preserve the black blots which have been attempted to be fixed on the
Catholic name. They say again, (and it is an idea that will go exceedingly
well with the public at large, for it will show how amiable and conciliating
are these gentlemen) — that they have submitted the books to us as though
we have nothing to do but to mark out a passage and it will disappear.
But are we to take the odium of erasing i)assages which they hold to be
true ? Have they the right to make such an offer ? And if we spend the
necessary time in reviewing the books to discover passages to be expurgated,
have they given us a pledge that they will do it, or that they will not even
then keep them in ? Have they given us a pledge that they will do it as far as
their denomination is concerned ? And then, after all the loss of time which
it would require to review these books, they can either remove the objec-
tionable passages, or preserve them as they see fit. An individual cannot
answer for a whole body. They may make a fine ofiier which may be cal-
culated to impose on the public, but if we put the question if they are able
and if they are willing, I should like to know whether they can, and will,
pass a law to show us that they arc sincere and that the object can be car-
ried out ? That would alter the case ; or we may correct one passage
to-day, and another next week ; and then another body may come into
power, and we may have to petition again and again. Could they then do
it if they would ? And should they if they could ? They add :
"In conclusion, your remonstrants would remark that they have not thought it ex-
pedient, on this occasion, to enter into a detailed defence of their conduct, as regards
all of the charges preferred by the Roman Catholics. Those charges are before your
honorable body, and the trustees will cheerfully submit to any inquiry that you "may
see fit to institute in relation to them ; and even if it can be shown that your remon-
strants are as ' eminently incompetent to the superintendence of public education ' as
the petition of the Roman Catholics intimates, it would not, they respectfully suggest
furnish any apology for breaking down one of the most important bulwarks of the civil
and religious liberties of the American people."
This much then as regards this document, which it will be perceived
goes on a false assumption that we want this money for a sectarian pur-
pose, because it was so referred to in the report of the Committee of the
Board of Assistant Aldermen, which denied our claim ; for when I come to
that it will be found that every proposition in it goes on the assumption
that we wish this money for religious purposes. If we did, it would be iust
to deny it to us. But I will now take up another document, and I regret
SPEECJI BEFOEE THE CITT COUNCIL. 1^1
that I cannot treat it with the respect I would otherwise wish to do. The
document from the Public School Society, however it mijrht have been
led aside, and however feeble in its reasoning, contained nothing, I trust and
believe, which was intended to be disrespectful to us. It wiis couched in
language at which I cannot take oilence; though it was weak in its prin-
ciples, its reasoning was decent. I cannot say as much for tliis wliich is
from " The undersigned committee, appointed by the pastors of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in this city." They commence by observing,
'•That they have heard with surprise and alarm" — they should have seen
our petition instead of taking " hearsay " for their authority — " that the
Roman Catholics have i-enewed their application to the Common Council
for an appropriation from the Common School Fund, for the support of
the schools under their own direction, in which they teach, and propose
still to teach, their own sectarian dogmas."
Where did they find that ? Where did they find that statement ? I
should like to know from the gentlemen who signed this remonstrance
where they have their authority for such an assertion ? We disclaim it in
the petition against which they remonstrate. It shows then how much
trust can be placed in "hearsay," when they should and might have exam-
ined the petition against which they remonstrate, in which they can find
no such thing.
"In which they te.ich, and propose still to teach, their own sectarian dogmas : not
only to their own children, but to such Protestant children as they may find meaus to
get into thesfe schools."
I ask these gentlemen again what authority they have for such an asser-
tion ? I should like to see the argument which gives them their authority
to use language and to make a statement so palpably false as this is.
" Your memorialists had hoped that the clear, cogent, and unanswerable arguments,
by which the former application for this purpose was resisted, would have saved the
Common Council from further importunity."
We shall see whether the arguments were so clear, cogent, and unan-
swerable by and by.
" It was clearly shown, that the Council could not legally make any sectarian appro-
priation of the public funds; and it was clearly shown that it would be utterly destruc-
tive of the whole scheme of public school instruction to do so, even if it could be
legally done. But it seems that neither the constitution of the State, nor the public
welfare are to be regarded, when they stand in the way of Romon Catholic sectarian-
ism and exclusiveness."
There is an inference for you ; and a very unfounded one it is too. " It
must be manifest to the Common Council, that if the Roman Catholic
claims are granted, all the other Christian denominations will urge their
claims for a similar appropriation " — And I say they have the right to do
it, I wish they would do it, for I believe it would be better for the future
character of the city, and for its fame, when this generation shall have
passed away. If they did claim it and the claim was granted, then an
effort would be made to raise good and pious and honest men.
'■ and that the money raised for education by a general tax, will be solely
applied to the purposes of proselytism, through the medium of sectarian
schools. But if this were done, would it be the price of peace ? or would
it not throw the apple of discord into the whole Christian community ?
Should we agree in the division of the spoils ?"
I am exceedingly sorry that the gentlemen who drew Up the remon-
strance had not more confidence in the power of their own religious princi-
ple than to suppose that it would be necessary to contend violently for
what they call the " spoils." We have submitted to be deprived of them for
]32 ae:;hbishop hughes.
years, and we have not manifested such a disposition ; and I am surprised
that they who understand so much of the power of religion should attach
so much value to the little money which is to be distributed as to suppose
that it would set Christians— professing Christians— together by the ears in
its distribution.
" Should we agree in the division of the spoils ? Would each sect be satisfied with
the portion allotted to it? We venture to say, that the sturdy claimants who now beset
the Council, would not be satisfied with much less than the lion's share ; and we are
sure that there are other Protestant denominations, besides ourselves, who would not
patiently submit to the exaction."
After what they have said by authority as the grounds of their opposi-
tion, where, instead they should have had history for their guide, I am not
surprised that they should prophesy in the matter. I, too, may prophesy
and I will say that the " sturdy claimants " are as respectable as they are,
and I trust it will never be attributable to us that we claim more than ia
our common right, and if that should be violated with respect to the Meth-
odist Episcopal denomination, we shall be far from the ranks of those who
may be the violaters.
" But when all the Christian sects shall be satisfied with their individual share of the
public fund, what is to become of those children whose parents belong to none of these
sects, and who cannot conscientiously allow them to be educated in the peculiar dogmas
of any one of them ? The diiferent committees who on a^former occasion approached
your honorable body, have shown, that to provide schools for these only would require
little less t^an is now expended; and it requires little arithmetic to show that when the
religious sects have taken all, nothing will remain for those who have not yet been able
to decide which of the Christian denominations to prefer. It must be plain to every
impartial observer that the applicants are opposed to the whole system of public school
instruction."
Have we said so ? And on what a,uthority have these gentlemen the right
t.0 say it if we have not ? Where are their data ? And yet they come before
this Honorable Body and make such assertions with the sanction of their whole
church ! •
" And it will be found that the uncharitable exclusiveness of their creed must ever be
opposed to all public instruction which is not under the direction of their own priest-
hood. They may be conscientious in all this ; but though it be no new claim on their
part, we cannot yet allow them to guide and control the consciences of all the rest of the
community."
Why, it would be a silly and absurd thing on our part to look for it. But
we never thought of it. It is a fiction of these gentlemen's own creation. I
contend we ask nothing for the community but for ourselves, and I trust it will
be granted if it is right, and if we can be shown that it is not right we will
abandon it cheerfully. But their assertion is wholly destitute of foundation.
" We are sorry that the reading of the Bible in the public schools, without note or
commentary, is offensive to them j but we cannot allow the Holy Scriptures to be ac-
companied with ifeir notes and commentaries" — Have we asked such a thing? or in any
way solicited it?—" and to put into the hands of the children, who may hereafter be the
rulers and legislators of our beloved country; because among other bad things taught
in these commentaries is to be foun^ the lawfulness of murdering heretics ; and the un-
qualified submission, in all matters of conscience, to the Roman Catholic Church."
I have a feeling of respect for many of their denomination, but not for the
head or the heart of those who drew this document up. ^ Here it states an un-
qualified falsehood. Here it puts forth a false proposition, and that proposition
has been introduced here as a slander. I can prove that it is so. And depend-
ing on the confidence here reposed in me, I propose and pledge myself to for-
feit a thousand dollars, to be appropriated in charities as this council may
direct, if those gentlemen can prove the truth of this allegation ; provided they
agree to the same forfeiture to be appropriated in a similar marner, if they fail
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 133
to establish its truth. If they can prove that the Catholic Church sanctions,
or has made it lawful to murder heretics, I will forfeit that sum. I feel in-
dignant that we should be met, when We come with a plain, and reasonable, and
honest request to submit to the proper authorities, with slanders such as that,
and that in the name of religion, which is holy. I wish them to hear what I
say. I know very well their books tell them so ; but they should look at the
original and not at secondary authorities when they assail our reputation and
our rights.
" But if the principle on which this application is based should be admitted, it must
be carried fur bej-ond the present purpose. If all are to be released from taxation,
when they ciinnot conscientiously derive any benefit from the disbursement of the money
collected, what will be done for the Society of Friends, and other sects who are opposed
to war under all circumstances ? "
With that I have nothing to do, and, therefore, I will pass on to another
point.
*' The Roman Catholics complain that books bav-e been introduced into the public
schools which are injurious to them as a body. It is allowed, however, that the pas-
sages in these books, to which such reference is made, are chiefly, if not entirely, his-
torical ; and we put it to the candor of the Common Council to say whether any his-
tory of Europe, for the last ten centuries, could be written, which could either omit
to mention the Roman Catholic Church, or mention it without recording historical
facts unfavorable to thatChurch?"
And this is what the remonstrants call a strong issue. They assert that no
history could be written which could either omit to mention the Roman
Catholic Church, or mention it without recording historical facts unfavorable
to the Catholic Church. If this be the case, I ask you whether, as citizens en-
titled to the rights of citizens, we are to be compelled to send our children to
schools which cannot teach our children history without blackening us. But
again they say,
" We assert that if all the historical facts in which the Church of Rome has taken a
prominent part could be taken from writers of her own communion only, the incidents
might be made, more objectionable tp the complainants, than any book to which they
now object."
No doubt of it ; and it only proves that Catholic historians have no
interest to conceal what is the truth. But I contend that there are pages
in the Catholic history brighter than any in the history of jMethodism ;
and that there are questions and passages enough for reading lessons,
without selecting such as will lead the mind of the Catholic child to be
ashamed of his ancestors. The Methodist Episcopal Church is a respecta-
ble church, and I am willing to treat it with becoming respect ; but it is a
young church ; it is not so old as the Catholic Church, and therefore has
fewer crimes ; but I contend again it has fewer virtues to boast of And
in its career of a hundred years it has done as little for mankind as any
other denomination.
" History itself, then, must be falsified for their accommodation ; and yet they com-
plain that the system of education adopted in the public schools does not teach the
sinfulness of lying !
" They complain that no religion is taught in these schools, and declare that any,
evfen the worst form of Christianity, would be better than none; and yet they object
to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, which are the only foundation of all true religion.
Is it not plain then, that they will not be satisfied with any thing short of the total
abandonment of public school instruction, or the appropriation of such portion of the
public fund as they may claim, to their owu sectarian purposes?"
All the time they go on the false issue. They charge that which we
disclaim, and they reason on a charge of their own invention, and which
we never authorized. Now, as I have a word to say about the Holy Scrip-
tures, I may as well say it at this, as at any other time. Their assumption
134 AKCHBISHOP HUGHES. ■
is that because the Scriptures are read, sufficient precaution is taken
against infidelity. But I do not agree with them in that opinion, and I
will give my reason. What is the reason that there is such a diversity of
sects all claiming the Holy Scriptures as the centre from which they draw
their lespeotive contradictory systems— that book which appears out of
school by the use made of it, to be the source of all dissension, when it
does not come to the minds of children with such authority as to fix on
their minds any definite principles ? As regards us, while the Protestants
say tlieirs is the true version, we say it is not so. We treat the Scriptures
reverently, but the Protestant version of the Scriptures is not a complete
copy, and as it has been altered and changed, we do not look upon it as
giving the whole writings which were given by the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit. We object not to the Holy Scriptures, but to the Protestant
version without note or comment. We think it too much to ask Protest-
ants to relinquish theirs and take ours for the use of the public schools.
]f we could ask you — if we could propose that you should take our book
— if we should ask you to put out the Protestant Scriptures and take ours,
with our note- and comment, do you think Protestants would agree to it ?
Do you not think we should be arraigned as enemies of the Word of God ?
— for that is one charge made when it is sought to denounce us. When
we speak language of this kind, instead of understanding us according to
our comprehension of the subject, they charge that we are enemies to the
Holy Scriptures. But to object to their version is not to object to the
Holy Scriptures ; and I am prepared to show them that no denomination has
done so much in the true sense for the Scriptures as the Catholic Church.
The remonstrants add :
'' But this is not all. They have been most complaisantly oflFered the censorship of
the books to be used in the public schools. The committee to whom has been confided
the management of these schools in this city, offered to allow the Roman Catholic
Bishop to expurgate from these books any thing offensive to him."
And now they go out of their way to sneer at us, and you will observe
the flippancy with which they do it.
'* But the offer was not accepted; perhaps, for the same reason that be declined to
decide on the admissibility of a book of extracts from the Bible, which had been sanc-
tioned by certain Roman bishops in Ireland. An appeal, it seems; had gone to the
Vope on the subject, and nothing could be said or done in the matter until his'Holiuess
had decided. The Common Council of New Tork will therefore find, that when they
shall have conceded to the Roman Catholics of this city the selection of books for the
use of the public schools, that these books must undergo the censorship of a foreign
Potentate. We hope the time^is far distant when the citizens of this country will
allow any foreign power to dictate to them in matters relating to either general or
municipal law."
Prophets again ; but not prophets of charity. I, sir, say not prophets
of good-will, for there is something more in their souls than the public
welfare. There is something in their insinuation that is insulting, and a
tone which does not show a mind enlightened and enlarged, and an
appreciation of equal justice and equal rights. Just their way. They
hear that an appeal has gone to the Pope ; and if we desired to appesl!,
also,' we should claim the right to do it without asking permission from
any one. Catholics all over the world do it when their consciences make
it a duty, but not in matters of this kind. " These books must undergo
the censorship of a foreign Potentate 1" Now we regard him only as
supreme in our Church, and there's an end of it.
" We cannot conclude this memorial without noticing one other ground on which
tlui Roman Catholics, in their late appeal to their fellow-citizens, urged their sectarian
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 135
plaima, and excused their conscientious objections to the public schools. Their creed
is dear to them, it seeiiia, because some of their ancestors have been martyrs to their
faith. This was an unfortunate allusion."
Some ! " Some of tlieir ancestors have been martyrs to their faith." I
speak of the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, and when you reflect
on the bigoted and unjust laws which Great Britain founded against all
that were Catholics, by which their churches were wrested from them, and
a bribe was offered as an inducement to the double crime of murder and
of perjury, when it authorized any man to bring the head of a Catholic to
the commissioner, and if he would only swear it was the head of a priest
he got the same price as for the head of a wolf, no matter whose head it
was — and when legislation of that kind continued for centuries, this, you
must agree with me, was being martyrs indeed. But when have the
Methodists shown a sympathy for those contending for the rights of con-
science ? When the Dissenters of England claimed to be released from
the operation of the "Test and Corporation" act by which they were
excluded from civil office, did the Methodist Episcopal Church assist
them ? Not a solitary petition went from them for the enlargement of
their freedom. And is it a wonder that we look to conscience and admire
those who had the firmness to suffer for conscience' sake ? By the penal
laws against_Cjtholics the doors of Parliament were closed against us, if
we had a conscience, for it required us to take an oath which we did not
believe to be true, and therefore we could not swear it. There it is, sir ;
it is because we have a conscience, because we respect it, that we have
suffered, and while virtue is admired on earth, the fidelity of the people
that are found standing by the right of conscience will command the
admiration of the world. And yet, we are told, it was an unfortunate
allusion !
" Did not the Roman Catholics know, that they addressed many of their
fellow-citizens who could not recur to the memoirs of their ancestors without
being reminded of the revocation of the Edict of ISTantz — " the massacre of St.
Bartholomew's day, the fires of Smithfield." What is that to us ? Are we
the people that took part in that ? " Or the crusade against the Waldenses ?
We would willingly cover these scenes with the mantle of charity." They had
better not make the attempt, for their mantle is too narrow. " And hope that
Dur Roman Catholic fellow-citizens will-in future avoid whatever has a tendency
to revive the painful remembrance."
Let them enter upon that chapter and discuss the charitableness of their
religion, and I am prepared to prove — I speak it with confidence in the presence
of this honorable .assembly — that the Catholic religion is more charitable to
those who depart from her pale, than any other that ever was yoked in unholy
alliance with civil power.
"Your memorialists had hoped that the intolerance and exclusiveness which had
characterized the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, had been greatly softened under
the benign influences of our civil institutions. The pertinacity with which their sectarian
interests are now urged, has dissipated the illusion."
Sectarian interests, again, although we have disclaimed them.
" We were content with their having excluded us, ' ex cathedra,* from all claim to
■ heaven, for we were sure they did not possess the keys, notwithstanding their confident
pretensions."
Why they need not be Uneasy about our excluding them from heaven, for
their opinion is that they have no chance to enter if they have anything to do
with us ; and therefore our excluding them is of no avail.
*' Nor did we complain they would not allow us any participation in the benefits of
purgatory — "
Pray what has that to do with Common School Education ?
186 ■ ABCHBISHOP HUGHES.
" For it is a place they have made for themselves, and of which ftey may claim the
exclusive property."
Well it is no matter whether we believe in purgatory or not ; it is no matter
for the Common Council to decide. But if they are not satisfied with our
purgatory, and wish to go farther, they may prove the truth of the proverb
which says " they may go farther and fare worse."
" But n-e do protest against any appropriation of the public school fund for their
exclusive benefit, or for any other purposes whatever. Assured that the Common
Council will do what it is right to do in the premises, we are, gentlemen, with great
respect, ^ our most obedient servants, N. Bangs, Thomas E. Bond, George Peck."
And now I have gone through these two remonstrances, both of which, it
will be seen, refer to the document of the Board of Assistant Aldermen, and
rest their opposition on the same ground. Of that document, I will pass over
the introduction, but I may observe that its authors, by what influence 1 am
unable to say, have been made to rest their report upon an issue such as I have
already described, and for which our petition furnishes no basis. I will first
call your attention to the following observations :
" The petitioners who appeared, also contended that they contributed, in common
with all other citizens who were taxed for the purpose, to the accumulation of the
Common School Fund, and that they were therefore entitled to a participation iu its
advantages ; that now they receive no benefit from the fund inasmuch as the members
of the Catholic Churches could not conscientiously send their children to schools in
which the religious doctrines of their fathers were exposed to ridicule or censure. The
truth and justice of the first br-anch of this proposition — ■
That is the payment of taxes,
— " cannot be questioned. The correctness of the latter part of the argument, so far as
the same relates to books or exercises of any kind in the Public Schools, reflecting on
the Catholic Church, was denied by the School Society."
Now it is to be remembered that this denial, of anything objectionable in
the books of the Public School Society, was made at the period of the last
application. I am persuaded those gentlemen, if they bad known there was
any thing objectionable to the Catholics, would not have denied it. I am sure
they believed there was nothing, and from this circumstance I think I may
fairly draw this inference, that they had not paid that attention to the books
which they should have done, knowing the variety of denominations contribut-
ing to this fund and entitled to its benefits ; or knowing this and the feelings
and principles of Catholics, that they were incompetent for the proper discharge
of their responsible duties. It is only on one of these two grounds that I can
account for their denial. But since that time they have not only admitted that
the objection was correct, but they have expunged passages from the books
which at the time of this denial they said did not exist. I shall pass on now to
the two questions on which the decision of the Committee was made to rest.
The first is — "Have the Common Council of this city, under the existing laws
relative to Common Schools in the city of New York, a legal right to appropriate
any portion of the School Fund to religious corporations ?"
Whether they have or not one thing is clear and certain, that it is not as a
" Religious Corporation" that we apply for it ; and it seems to me that this
should have struck the attention of the Public School Society, and the other
gentlemen who have remonstrated. 'We do not apply as a religious body— we
apply in the identical capacity in which we are taxed— as citizens of the com-
monwealth, without an encroachment on principle or the violation of any
man's conscience. But secondly they ask—" Would the exercise of such power
be m accordance with the spirit of the constitution, and the nature of our
government ?"
Certainly not._ If the constitution and government have determined that no
religious denomination shall receive any civil privilege, the exercise of such
power will not be in conformity with the spirit of the constitution and the
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 1J7
nature of our government. But there is throughout and in all these Jocuments
a squeamishness, a false delicacy, a persuasion that eveiything which excludes
religion abroad is right and liberal. It would be unnecessary for nie to follow
this report sentence by sentence if there had not been so much roiiance placed
on it by those who have remonstrated ; but a,s so much consequence has been
attached to it I will call your attention to some other passages. They go on to
say : " Private associations and religious corporations were excluded from the
management of the fund and the government of the schools. Private interest,
under this system, could not appropriate the public treasure to private purposes,
and religious zeal could not divert it to the purposes of proselytism."
Why there is nothing of the kind intended. We have been driven by the
o) ligation of our consciences, and at our expense, which we are poorly able to
bear, to provide schools ; but they are not convenient, they are not well venti-
lated, and are not well calculated to give that development to your young
citizens which they ought to have ; why argue, then, against religious corpo-
rations, and, in treating this question, bring prejudices into view which
ought to have no existence in reality? They then go on to give the
history and origin of the ijresent law and of the Public School Fund, and
it seems that for a period of time, and a long period, the Legislature desig-
nated the schools which might participate in this bountj'. Each religious
denomination provided for the instruction of its own poor; they had
Ijrovided schools, and their exertions were honorable and laudable. The
Legislature granted its aid, and the respective Societies were encouraged to
go on with the good work, and they did go on year after year, and then
there was never heard that disputation which appears now to be so much
dreaded. There was not then heard dissentation between neighbors, or
strife between societies ; everything went on peaceably, and why ? Because
the schools and the citizens were not then charged that religion was a
forbidden subject. Nor should you now make it a forbidden part of
education, because on religious principles alone can conscience find a
resting-place. It should be made known that here conscience is supreme —
that here all men are free to choose the views which their judgments, with
a sense of their responsibility to an eternal weal or woe, shall offer for their
adoption. It should be taught that here neighbors have the right to differ,
and whatever is the right of one must be recognized as the right of the
other ; and the distribution of this fund will be better calculated to benefit
the community than it can be by these public schools where everything
seems to be at par except religion, and that is below par at an immense
discount. They tell us then that — " The law was imperative in its char-
acter, and the several religious societies of the city possessed a legal right
to draw their respective portions of the fund from the public treasury,
subject only to the restriction, that the money so received should be appro-
priated to the purposes of free and common education."
But that '■^ right to draw''' has been taken away ; yet there is nothing in
the act by which the right to draw is taken away which forbids their
I'eceiving it still, if in the judgment of this Honorable Body the circum-
stances of the case entitle them to it. It is not an impeachment — the
legislature had no intention to reflect on religious bodies — it liad no
intention to blackball religion in the Public Schools ; and yet that view has
been taken of it. Such was not the case; but because circumstances had
arisen; and what were they ? "Why gross abuses had been practiced by
one of the religious societies, and — " The funds received by the Church
were applied to other purposes than those contemplated by the act."
~ Under some prfitext the favor to expend the school moneys had been
conferred on that Society in a way that distinguished it from all other
Christian denominations and societies ; and the other seeing this privilege
138 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
conferred on one and r-ot on the rest, ventured to remonstj-ate with the Legis-
lature ; they intimated that the partiality to that Society of Baptists Tvas
an injustice to others, and they remonstrated against the law conferring
exclusive privileges and against no other thing whatever. _ And yet by
every document, and by this very document, it seems to be imagined that
the Legislature did not revoke special favors granted to that Society, but
withdrew its aid from all Christian churches ; so that all the men who
remonstrated against this partial legislation were found to have been
themselves deprived of the privilege which they had enjoyed, and this on
the strength of their own remonstrances for quite another thing. And the
discretion which the Legislature had exercised to designate the schools
\vhich should receive this fund was transferred to this Honorable Body,
the Common Council of the City of New York. And why was it trans-
lerred ? I cannot speak positively, but while it seems to me that there
were abuses shown to exist by the remonstrants, of which they made com-
plaint, we may suppose the Legislature conceived it difficult for them to
take cognizance of the matter, not being on the spot, but that the Common
Council being here, and being a body chosen by the people in which, con-
sequently, the public would have confidence, was the best and most fitting
body to designate from time to time the institutions or schools which
should be entitled to receive those school moneys. This must have been
their intention, and yet this has been interpreted as repealing the law in
order to deprive those denominations of a legal right (for right they had,
and they could come and demand the money) and not a mere transfer of
the discretion to give this money from the Legislature to the Common
Council of New York. Now all this, which is so plain and simple has
been construed by these gentlemen of the Public School Society as what ?
As conferring a monopoly upon thein. As a law disqualifying all religious
denominations receiving it. So it has been interpreted. But if it were
so, we ask not for the money on the ground that we are a religious corpora-
tion, but of public utility, for the purpose of giving an education to a
large and destitute class which otherwise will not have the means to pro-
cure it. We ask it to secure a public advantage, and if the objections
anywhere exist to which I have directed your attention, they do not apply
to our case. Gentlemen, I think it unnecessary to detain you any longer
on this subject as referred to in this document, because while the question
is composed of one simple fact, they are arguing against dangers which
do not threaten them. But then they go on to say, " to prevent in our
day and country, the recurrence of scenes so abhorrent to every principle
of justice, humanity, and right, the Constitution of the United States, and
of the several States, have declared in some form or other, that there
should be no establishment of religion by law ; that the affairs of the
State should be kept entirely distinct from, and unconnected with those
of the Church ; that every human being should worship God, according
to the dictates o*f his own conscience ; that all churches and religions
should be supported by voluntary contribution ; and that no tax should
ever be imposed for the benefit of any denomination of religion, for any
cause, or under any pretence whatever."
All this is doctrine to which we subscriGe most heartily. And while
we seek to be relieved from the evils under which we suffer, wo do not
seek relief to the detriment of any other sect. AVhat ! is this country
independent of religion ? Is it a country of Atheism, or of an Established
Religion ? Neither the one nor the other ; but a country which makes no
law for religion, but places the right of conscience above all other authority
—granting equality to all, protection to all, preference to none. And
while aL these documents have gone on the presumption of preference, all '
SPEECH EEFOEK THE CUT COUNCIL. 139
we want is that we ma,y be entitled to protection and not preference. We want
that the public money shall not be employed to sap religion in the minds of
our children — that they may have the advantages of education without the in-
termixture of religious views with their common knowledge which goes to de-
stroy that which wo believe to be the true religion. There is another feature
connected with this subject — which is the definition given of a public school
such as should be entitled to this money. "If the school money," says these
gentlemen, — and I must believe they are imposed on by a statement which is
not correct. I believe if they had known the true statement, they would not
have published in their report such a statement as this : " If the school money
sliould be divided among the religious denominations generally, as some
have proposed, there will be nothing left for the support of schools of a
•purely civil character; and if there should be, in such a state of things,
any citizen who could not, according to his opinions of right and wi'ong,
conscientiously send his child to the school of an existing sect, there would
be no public school in which he could be educated. This might, and
probably would be the case with hundreds of our citizens."
Now, let me for a moment invite your attention to that part of the sub-
ject which I have now tl* honor to submit to you ; and it is that part on
vrhich all these documents go, that religious teaching would vitiate all
claim to a participation in this public fund. A common education, then,
as understood by the State, is a secular education, and these documents
contend that any religious teaching, no matter how slight, will vitiate all
claim to a participation in this fund. Now, the Public School Society, in
their reports, have from time to time stated themselves, and, observe, with
a consciousness that the jealous eye of the community is upon them — they
state, still under this restriction, that they have imparted religion. Now,
if this doctrine be correct, they are no more entitled to the Common School
Fund than others ? Or, is the doctrine correct, and yet one must abide by
it and not another ? Again, these gentlemen charge us with accusing them
of teaching infidelity, when taking this tax they give that education which,
they state to us when we apply for a portion of this money, the State con-
templates to give the scholar. Now, if the child be brought up without
religion what is he ? " Oh," they say, " we do not teach it." Is it neces-
sary to teach infidelity? It does not require the active process. To make
an infidel, what is it necessary to do ? Cage him up in a room, give him a
secular education from the age of five years to twenty-one, and I ask you
what he will come out, if not an infidel ? Whether he will know anything
about God ? And yet they tell you that religious teaching is a disqualifica-
tion. What will a child be, then, if you give him their education from his youth
up to the age of twenty-one ? Will he know anything of God, and of a Divine
Kedeemer ? of a Trinity, of the incarnation of the Saviour, and the redemption
of the world by the atonement of Christ, or of any of those grand doctrines
which are the basis and corner-stone of our Christianity ? And because we
object to a system of teaching which leads to practical infidelity, we are ac-
cused of charging the Public School Society with being infidels. They furnish
the basis of the charge; we do not wish to do so. Now, I ask you whether it
was the intention of the Legislature of New York, or of the people of the State,
that the Public -Schools should be made precisely such as the infidels want ?
Permit me to say, when I use the term infidel, I mean no disrespect to those
that are so. I would not be one ; but I respect their right to be what they
please. A few days ago, a gentleman, who professes to be" one of this class,
and who would not allow his children to be scholars where religion is taught
at alj, said he could send them to the Public School, for there the education
suited him. What, then, is the consequence? That while the public educa'
tion of New York is guarded in such a manner as to suit the infidel, the chil-
]40 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
dren become so. And is there any authority in this Board, or of a legislative body
iit Albany, or is there any Board in the Union, with power by the constitution,
to oxclude religion or to engraft it ? Neither the one nor the other. Ihe in-
fidel s.iys truly, that there is no rehgion taught, and, therefore, he can send his
children ; and I should like to know why any member of a Christian church
should be forced to do violence to his convictions and not be permitted to en-
joy equal advantages ? If the infidel can send his children to these schoolsbe-
cause no religion is taught there, and who, therefore, has to make no sacrifaces
of conscience, why cannot the Christian enjoy equal advantages ? They say
their instruction is not sectarianism ; but it is ; and of what kind ? The sec-
tarianism of infidehty in its every feature. But becau*e it is of a negative kind,
and they do not admit the doctrines of any particular denomination, because
they do not profess to teach religion, therefore it is suited for all ! As a test,
therefore, of this principle, give this purely secular knowledge to a young man,
keep him from intercourse with the rest of the world, give him nothing else,
and what sort of a man would he be ? What would be the state of his mind ?
A blank — a perfect blank as to religious impressions. But I contend that it is
infidelity, and I hope the Public School gentlemen hear what I say. But, again,
I do not charge it on their intention, and their assertion is purely gratuitous
when they say that such an accusation is made against them. Here is the ob-
servation of the report on this subject :
" If religious instruction is communicated, it is foreign to the intentions of the
school system, and should be instantly abandoned. Religious instruction is no part of a
Common School education."
Such, then, is the nature of that report which, I take leave to repeat, has
been prepared by the gentlemen who drew it up as a committee, under the im-
pression fixed on their minds that Catholics want this money to promote their
rfeligion, and that if it were granted to us others would want it for their respec-
tive religions also ; and on this assumption they decided ; but against this false
issue I protest, whether set forth in tliis report or in the two remonstrances be-
fore this Council — one from the Public School Society, and the other from the
Methodist* Episcopal Church. It is not my business to speak in relation to the
Public School Society at large. Of its history I have taken pains to make my-
self suflSciently possessed to speak ; and I find that in its origin, so far 'from
disclaiming all connection with religion, so far from conceiving rehgious teach-
ing disadvantageous, it was originally incorporated for the purpose of supply-
ing the wants of the destitute portion of the population, and their petition for a
charter set forth
" The benefits which would result to society from the education of such children, by
implanting in their minds the principles of religion and morality."
At this time every denomination taught its own, and received an equal por-
tion of the fund from the public authorities to aid them in their good work, so
that their children were provided for, and this Society came to gather in the
neglected and the outcast — they came as gleaners, after the reapers had gone
through the field, and a most benevolent purpose theirs was ; and their object
I repeat, when they applied to the Legislature, was set forth to be — (for thej'
did not conceal the advantages of a religious education) — to produce benefits to
society by the implanting in the minds of such children the principles of re-
ligion and morality. There wore children belonging to no denomination, and
this Society seeing the benefits which would result to society from the educa-
tion of such children by implanting in their minds the principles of religion and
morality, undertook this benevolent work, and covered themselves and the name
of their Society with glory by that undertaking. But it is strange that what
then was so advantageous to the community — the implanting in the minds of
children the principles of rsligion and morality — should have ceased to be ao
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 141
now ; and that they or their successors should seek to make that varj thing a
disquahfication, and to turn it against all denominations of Christians, and
cUim themselves to monopoUse the fund and the teaching on the principle that
no religion shall be imparted. Now, has the Legislature seen lit to alter the
character so as to make religious teaching a disqualification of all other sects ?
Was it for that purpose that this Society, step by step, obtained enlarged
privileges, by which not only the neglected children of the community, but
those of others, came under their care, that they obtained grants from the
public treasury and the exchequer of the city, to an amount of many thous-
ands of dollars, until the Society claims to he the true and only Society,
though existing as a private corporation, electing its own body, fixing a tax
for the privilege of membership, sometimes $10, at others $20, |25, and §50,
any of which sums is too much for a poor man to pay ; and out of this or-
ganized body electing the Trustees to carry on the work?
I mention this, not to blame them, for they believe they are doing good,
out to show that even with men who are honorable in every day-life, how
much watchfulness and vigilance, how much tact and talent, is used to grasp
more and more, till they absorb all, and completely deprive all others of any
participation in the advantages of controlling this fund.
It is not my intention, as it is not my peculiar province, to enter into the
legal part of the argument ; but I have to regret that the gentleman who did
intend to treat it, and to whose department it belonged, has been unfor-
tunately prevented by the bursting of a small blood-vessel. But though my
experience has not qualified me to enter into legal matters, yet, as a citizen,
I might have the right to express my opinion on the monopoly which this
Society claims ; and that opiny)n is contrary to the monopoly, and not only
contrary to their monopoly, smiply regarded as a monopoly, but because I
believe that a monopoly of this description should be regarded with double
jealousy. "Why? Because this monopoly is of greater weight than in ordi-
nary cases; of great weight pecuniarily — for last year the fund amounted to
$115,000 — because the distribution of that money gives to them a patronage
which, considering the weakness of human nature, is in danger of being used
disadvantageously ; because it gives to them privileges of infinitely higher
*> importance than any that can be estimated by dollars and cents — the privi-
lege of stamping their peculiar character on the minds of thousands and tens
oi^ thousands of our children. They ought to be men, to discharge the trust
of such a monopoly, as pure as angels, and almost imbued with wisdom from
above — such men they should be, when they would venture to come and
stand by the mother's side, and say, in effect, " Give me the darling which
you have nourished at your breast — give it to me, a stranger, and I will direct
its mind. True, you are its parent ; but you are not fit to guide its youthful
progress, and to implant true principles in its mind ; therefore give it to me,
and give me also the means wherewith to instruct it." That is the position
of that Society ; and they ought to be almost more than men for this — as
doubtless they are honorable men in their proper places; but of that we
should have the most satisfactory evidence, that we may be well assured
that they are fitted to discharge their duties. It is this consideration that
brought me here, as the first pastor of a body of people, large and numer-
ous as they are known to be ; but poor as many of them arc, and exposed
to many hardships, they have children with immortal souls, whose condi-
tion is involved in this question, and if it is an impropriety in the clerical
character, I would rather undergo the reproach than neglect to advocate
their rights, as far as I have the power, with my feeble ability.
The Catholics of the city of New York may be estimated as one-fifth of
the population ; and when you take account of tlie class of children usually
attending the Public Schools, and consider how many there ar j in this city
142 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
A9ho are in affluent circumstances, which enable them to give an education
I to their children, who do not therefore participate in the teaching ot the
Public Schools; and when you consider the numbers not attending _ any
school at all, I say, of those people, who, by their poverty, are the objects
most usually composing the number that require the assistance of the Com-
mon SchoolFunfl, Catholics are one-third, if not more. And when I see this
one-third excluded— respecting, as I do, their welfare in this life, as well
as their welfare in a brighter world— then it is that I come forward thus
publicly, and stand here to plead for them. I conceive we have our rights
in question, and, therefore, most respectfully, I demand them from this .
Honorable Board.
I am not surprised that there should be remonstrances against our claim ;
but I did hope, in an age as enlightened as this is, and among gentlemen
of known liberality of feeling, that their opposition would not have been
characterized as this has been. However, it is not to me a matter of sur-
prise; for I believe if some of those gentlemen, who consider themselves
now as eminent Christians, had lived at the period when Lazarus lay lan-
guishing at the gate of the rich man, petitioning for the crumbs that fell
from the table, they would have sent their remonstrance against Ms
petition.
When the Methodist Episcopal Church sent its petition for a portion of
this fund, some eight years ago, then it was not .unconstitutional ! Yet, did
the Catholics send in their remonstrance against it ? When their theo-
logical seminaries obtained (and they still receive) the bounty of the State,
did, or do, the Catholics complain ? Has there been a single' instance of
illiberality on the part of the Catholics, or a want of disposition to grant
rights as universal as the nature of man may require ? And I have been
astonished only at this, that good men, with good intentions, should prefer
to cling to a system, and to the money raised for its support by the public
liberality — ^that they would sooner see tens of thousands of poor children
contending with ignorance, and the companions of vice, than concede one
iota of their monopoly, in order that others may enjoy their rights. I say
this, because I am authorized to say it.
And what am I to infer, but, that they prefer the means to the end. The
end designed, is to convey knowledge to the minds of our children ; the
means is the public fund ; and, by refusing to cause the slightest variation
in their system, they cling to the means, while they leave thousands of
childl'en without the benefit which the State intended to confer. They may
pursue that course, but the experience of the past should have tajight them
that, while they maintain their present character, a large portion of their
fellow-citizens have not— cannot have — confidence in them.
But they have said that, if a portion of this fund is given to Catholics,
all other sects will want it. Then, let them have it. But I do not see that
that is probable ; and my reason is this : They have sent in remonstrances
against the claim of the Catholics, as you will see by a reference to docu-
ment No. 80, all 'of which go to prove that they are satisfied with the pres-
ent Public School System. And if they are satisfied, and their children de-
rive benefit from it, let them continue to frequent the schools as they do
now. The schools are no benefit to Catholics now ; we have no confidence
in them ; there is no harmony of feeling between them and us ; we have no
confidence that those civil and religious rights that belong to us will be
enjoyed, while the Public School Society retains its present monopoly.
We do not receive benefit from these schools : do not, then, take from
Catholic? their portion of the" fund, by taxation, and hand it over to those
who do not give them an equivalent in return. Let those who can, receive
the advantages of these schools ; but as Catholics cannot, do not tie them
SPEECH BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 143
to a sj'stem which is intended for the advantage of a class of societj of
which they form one-third, but from which system tV. py can receive no
benefit.
Tliere are many other topics connected with this subject, to which I
might advert; but I must apologize for the length of time tluit I have
ti-espassed on your patience. I feel, unaccustomed as I am to address such
a body, and hurried as was my preparation, that I have not been able to
present the subject before you in that clear and lucid manner that would
make it interesting; but it was not with that view that I claimed your
attention in relation to it; it was with far higher motives: and I now,
with confidence, submit it to your judgment.
BISHOP HUGHES' SECOND DAY'S SPEECH BEFORE THE BOARD
OF ALDERMEN AND COUNCILMEN, IN ANSWER TO MR. SEDG-
WICK, MR. KETCHUM, DR. BOND, DR. SPRING, AND OTHERS,
'WHO ADDRESSED THE CITY COUNCIL IN OPPOSITION TO THE
PETITION OF THE CATHOLICS; ALSO THE DISCUSSION IN
REGARD TO THE AUTHORITY OP THE RHEMISH TESTAMENT
AS A CATHOLIC TERSION, ETC.
When Mr. Ketchum concluded his argument on the first; day, the
Rev. Dr. Bond appeared as the representative of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, but he gave way to the Right Rer. Bishop
Hughes, who desired to make a brief reply to the two legal gentle-
men who had addressed the Board. He said :
I have a few remarks that I wish to make, partly in reference to
myself and partly to nly principles, and the views submitted with
regard to those principles ; but the debate has taken a raiige too
wide and too legal for me to pretend to follow it throughotit. I am
not accustomed to the niceties of legislation or the manner of int-er-
preting statutes or acts of the Legislature; but to sum up the
whole of the two eloquent addresses made by the gentlemen who
have just spoken, they amount to this : that either the consciences of
Catholics must be crushed and their objections resisted, or the Public
School System must fee destroyed. That is the pith of both their
observations. They ar-gue that there must be either one or the
other of these two results, and those • gentlemen are inclined to the
course of compelling conscience to give way, they being the judge
of our conciences which they wish to overrule ; so that the Public
School Society — and I do not desire to detract from it as far as good
intentions are concerned — shall continue to dispose of the Public
School Fund notwithstanding our objections and reasoning on
[which they are based. The gentleman»who last spoke appeared to
[imagine that I wished the exclusion of the Protestant Bible, and
Ithat, for the benefit of the Catholics, I laid myself open to the
144 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
charge of enmity to the word of Gocl ; tut I desire nothing of the
sort. I would leave the Protestant Bible for those who reverence
it ; but for myself, it has not my confidence. Another objection
which he made was of a personal character to myself; but while
that gentleman started with the beautiful rule of charity to others,
and with a lecture on the propriety of retaining our station in life_,
and the impropriety of the public appeals of which he was pleased
to speak, I regret that his practice was not in accordance with his
precept— and that .while he was lecturing me on the subject, he him-
self should have gone beyond anything which proper discussion
called for. If I attended those meetings, it was because I felt the
evil of the present system as regards us — -not its evils as regards
others ; and we must be permitted to be the judges of our own
duties, and to see for ourselves, while we accord to others the same
right for themselves. I beg to disclaim any intention to overrule
this comraunity, or to bring anything from Rome, except to those
who believe in its spiritual authority. Consequently, all those re-
marks of that gentleman have been out of place ; and for the rest, I
conceive the true point has not been touched. N"ot one of our
objections or scruples of conscience has he undertaken to analyze,
nor the grounds on which they exist. When I gave those reasons
for our objections, I thought some argument would have been urged
fairly against them ; but the only end the gentleman appears to have
in view, is the preservation of the School Society, and to maintain
that they have a patent right to the office. That, I know, is his
object; but I did not expect to hear any man construing the law as
that its advantages, cannot reach us unless we lay down and sacrifice
our consciences at the threshold. I have spoken for myself, and I
have disclaimed all high-handed objects ; but the gentleman insists,
notwithstanding the pledge which we have given, that, in spite of
all, we shall teach our religion. I disclaim such intentions, and I do
not think it fair in that gentleman to impute intentions which we
disclaim. The gentleman has drawn a beautiful picture of society
if all could live in harmony (I would it could be reduced to prac-
tice), whether born in foreign parts or in this country. But if all
could be brought up together — if all could associate in such a state
without prejudice to the public welfare, while the Protestants use
such books as those to which we object, it could only be by the
Catholic concealing his religion ; for if he owns it he will be called
a " Papist." The gentleman says that one of the books to which
we object is not a text-book used in schools ; but, if not, it is one
of the books placed in the library to which I do not say we con-
tribute more than others ; but it is supported at the public expense,
to which Catholics contribute as well as others. I will read you
one passage and leave you to judge for jourselves what will be its
effects on the minds of our children.^ The work is entitled "The
Irish Heart," and the author, on page 24, is describing an Irish
Catholic, and he says : " As for old Phelim Maghee, he was of no
particular religion."
BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL, 145
And how do the gentlemen describe the Public Schools, but as
schools of religion and no religion ! They say they give religious
instruction ; but again they say it is not religion, for it does not
vitiate their claim.
"As for old Phelim Maghee, he was of no particular religion."
" When Phelim had laid up a good stock of sins, he now and then went over to
Killarney, of a Sabbath morning, and got relaaf by confisning them out o' the waj,
as he used to express it, and sealed up his soul with a wafer."
That is the term they apply to our doctrine of transubstantiation ;
and they want us to associate and to enjoy everything in harmony
when they thus assail our religious right.
" and return quite invigorated for the perpetration of new offences."
ITow, suppose Catholic children hear this in the company of their
Protestant associates ! They will be subject to the ridicule of their
companions, and the consequence will be that their dt)mestic and
religious attachments will become weakened, they become ashamed
of their religion, and they will grow up Nothing ariuns.
But again, on page 120, when speaking of intemperance, we find
the following :
" It is more probable, however, a. part of the papal system."
And this, notwithstanding all that Father Mathew has done.
" For, when drunkenness shall have been done away, and with it, that just re-
lative proportion of all indolence, ignorance, crime, misery, and superstition, of
which it is the putative parent ; then truly a much smaller portion of mankind
may be expected to follow the dark lantern of the Romish religion."
" That religion is most likely to find professors among the frivolous and the
wicked, which by a species of ecclesiastical legerdemain can persuade the sinner
that he is going to heaven, when he is going directly to hell. By a refined and
complicated system of Jesuitry, and prelatical juggling, the papal see has obtained
its present extensive influence through the world."
And, unless we send our children to imbibe these lessons, we are
going to overturn the system ! But is that the true conclusion to
which the gentlemen should come, from our petition ? Is that rea-
soniiig from facts and the evidence before their eyes ? I have
promised not to detain the Board, and therefore I would merely
say, if I have attended those meetings, it was not with the views the
gentleman has imputed to me, nor to distinguish myself as has been
insinuated. I have taken good care to banish politics from those
meetings, and if I have mentioned the number of Catholics, or of
their children, it was to show how far this system falls short of the
end which the Legislature has in view. I disclaim utterly and
entirely the intention imputed to me by the gentleman, but I will not
longer detain the Board.
Mr. Mott, one of the Public School Trustees, with the permission
of the Board, explained the manner in which the book which the
Right Rev. Prelate had last alluded to, had found its way into the
schools. It was one of a series of tales published by the Temperance
Society; and when a committee was appointed for filling the library,
10
146 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
their attention was called to the first number of the series ; they
had read two or three of them which had come from the press,_and
as they appeared adapted to the reading of children, the committee
admitted them, and by some mistake it was supposed that all the
other volumes of the same series and under the same title were
ordered too, and they were sent in as they were issued from the
press after that period, and in this way the book in question had
crept in. But this being discovered by a Catholic Trustee, it was
withdrawn, and of this the gentlemen were fully apprised, and
therefore he asked if it was generous or just to quote that book,
under these circumstances, to strengthen the cause of the Catho-
lics.
The Right Rev. Bishop Hughes assured the gentleman that he,
until that moment, had not ^eard of the books having been with-
drawn.
The Rev. Dr. Bond then again rose to address the Board as the
representative of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; but as it was
now 10 o'clock, it was proposed by one of the aldermen to take a
recess until Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock which was agreed to, and
the Board adjourned.
■ The Board re-assembled at four o'clock on Friday the 30th October,
1840, by adjournment from the previous day, but some time elapsed
before the debate could be resumed, in consequence of the difficulty
which the gentlemen, who took part, in the proceedings, found in
gaining an entrance to the Council Chamber, through the greatly
increased crowd of persons who were anxious and struggling to be
present. After the room had been filled to overflowing, many hun-
dreds were still excluded who desired admission ; but the room was
filled to its utmost capacity, even to standing room in the windows,
and those still crowding round the entrance door were obliged to
endure the disappointment. David Graham, Esq., Alderman of the
Fifteenth Ward, presided on this occasion as the locum (enens of the
President, Mr. Alderman Purdy, who, however, was present seated
with the Aldermen. There were also present many distinguished and
reverend gentlemen of various denominations of this city, besides
those who took part in the discussion. Dr. Brownlee was seated
near Dr. Bond during that gentleman's speech, but he did not at-
tempt to address the Board. The Rev. Dr. Pise, and other rever-
end gentlemen of the Catholic Church, were seated with the Right
Rev. Bishop Hughes, and the Very Rev. Dr. Power, and many
preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, were in the vicinity
of the orator by whom they were represented. "When all the gen-
tlemen were seated, the President called upon the Rev. Dr. Bond,
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to proceed with the debate on
behalf of the remonstrants of that body. When Drs. Bond, Knox,
Reese and Bangs had addressed the Council, Dr. Spring, of the Brick
Presbyterian Church arose, and in the course of his remarks, said :
'IThe gentleman has sought to prove that the present^system leads to
infidelity. Now, sir, let no man think it strange that I should prefer infr
BBFOEE THE CITY COtTNCIL. 14 7
tlelliy to Catholicism. Even a mind as acute as Voltaire's came to
the conclusion that, if there was no alternative between infidelity
and the dogmas of the Catholic Church, he should choose infidelity.
/ loovld choose, sir, in similar circumstances, to be a.fi infidel io-morroiv."
At the conclusion of Dr. Spring's harangue, the President called
upon the Right Rev. Dr. Hughes to conclude the debate, who im-
meditately arose to reply to the arguments of all the gentlemen
w,ho had been heard on the subject, and spoke as follows :
Mr. President, it would require a mind of much greater capacity
than mine to arrange and mature the topics, relevant or otherwise,
that have been introduced into this discussion, since I had the honor
to address you yesterday. No less than seven or eight gentlemen
of great ability have presented their respective views on the subject,
and not only on the subject in regard to its intrinsic merits, but on
subjects which they deemed, at least, collateral, but which I think
quite irrelevant. The gentleman who last addressed you (Dr.
Spring) is entitled to my acknowledgments for the candor with
which he expressed his sentiments in reference to it ; namely, that
he was opposed to it more because it came from Catholics, than if
it had been presented by any other denomination. That gentleman
is entitled to my acknowledgment, and I award it, if worthy df his
acceptance. The subject — for it is exceedingly. important that the
subject should be kept in view — is one, as I stated before, that is
very simple. We are a portion of this community ; we desire to
bo nothing greater than any other portion ; we are not content to
be made less. There is nothing, sir, in that system of the Public
School Society against which any of the gentlemen who have
spoken, either in their individual capacity or as the representatives
of bodies of people, have urged a single conscientious objection,
and, of course, they have no right to complain— they are satisfied,
and, therefore, I am willing that they should have the system, but I
am not willing that they should press it upon me, and for good
reason. And, sir, if this honorable body rejects the claim of your
petitioners, what is the issue ? That we are deprived of the bene-
fits to which we are entitled, and that we are not one iota worse
than we were before. That is our consolation. But the whole
range of the argument of the gentleman, who spoke last, was, to
show that this Public School System was got up with the concur-
rence of public opinion, and that having been so got up, it had
worked beautifully, and that gentlemen who never heard of con-
scientious objections to it, because it suits their views, deem it
wonderful that we can have any conscience at all on the subject.
That is the amount of it. What ! no ground for conscientious ob-
jection, when you teach our children in those schools that " the
deceitful Catholics " burned John Huss at the stake, for conscience,
when evidences are numerous before you of a more just and a more
honorable character — when you might find on the page of history,
that in Catholic Poland every avenue to dignity in the state was
opened to Protestants, by the concurrent vote of eight Catholic
148 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
Bishops, whilst the vote of any one of thorn, according to the con-
stitution of the PoHsh Diet, of which they were members, could
have prevented the law being passed — and what is more, when the
first lesson of universal toleration and freedom of conscience the
world was ever called to learn, was set by the Catholics of Mary-
land—I speak in the presence of gentlemen who can contradict me
if they know where to find the authority — and what was this but
homage to the majesty of conscience, by a Church which they wish
to establish as a persecuting Church. That Church, sir, which the
gentleman has come here to prove justifies the murdering of here-
tics, was the first to teach a lesson which Protestants have been
slow to learn and imitate, but which the reUgion they profess should
have taught them. But not these examples alone ; there are hun-
dreds more. At this day in Belgium, where Protestants are in a
minority of one to twelve, the state votes them an equal portion,
and where their clergy are married, a larger portion, and that with
the concurrence of the Council and the Catholic Bishops. The
gentleman need not tell me of Catholicism ; I know it well ; and
what is more, I know Protestantism well ; and I know the profes-
sions of good will of Protestants do not always correspond with
their feelings. But I should like to know whether or not in Protest- '
antism they find authority for persecuting to the knife, not Catho-
lics alone, but each other, even after they have proclaimed the right
of every man to think for himself. With good reason, sir, do I
contend for conscience, but theymay think a Catholic has no right
to have a conscience at all. They may think because this system is
beautiful in their view, that this pretension to conscience on the
part of Catholics ought to be stifled, as a thing not to be admitted
at all. But that will not do. Man in this country has a right to
the exercise of conscience, and the man that should raise himself up
against it will find that he has raised himself up against a tremen-
dous opponent. Now, what is it we ask ? You have heard from
beginning to end the arguments on this occasion, and though I may
not follow the wanderings of this discussion through all its minute
parts, if I pass over any part, be assured it is not from any desire
to avoid, or any inability to refute what has been said against us.
I may pass over many points, but I will not pass over any great
principle, and you have, no doubt, given so much attention to the
subject as to enable you, if I should not recapitulate the whole, to
decide justly. It has been urged, that if you give Catholics that
which they now ask, you will give them benefits which will elevate
them above others ; but, I contend most sincerely, and most consci-
entiously, that we have no such idea ; and when you shall have
granted the portion we claim, if you should be pleased to grant it,
I conceive then, and not before, shall we be in the enjoyment of
the protection, and not privilege, to which we are entitled. That is
my view of the subject ; but, I have been astonished to perceive
the course of argument of the gentlemen who oppose our claim,
generally speaking. What it is they contend for I cannot deter-
BEFOKE THE CITY COUNCIL. 149
mine ; but, it seems to be the preservation of the existing system.
They were among the first to disclaim the doctrine that the end
justifies the means, and if in attaining their end they find they ear-
not reach it without injustice, then as conscientious and high-mind-
eii men, the}^ should have paused by the way, and have ascertained
whether the means were worthy of them and of oui glorious
country. Yet, sir, they have generally overlooked this, and it is
no new thing to find that they have labored to promote the benefit
of their own society, at the sacrifice of the rights of others. Sir,
it is the glory of this country that when it is found that a wrong
exists, there is a power, an irresistible power, to correct the wrong.
They have represented us as contending to bring the Catholic
Scriptures into the Public Schools. This is not true ; but, I shall
have occasion to refer more particularly to this by and by. They
have represented us as enemies to the Protestant Scriptures " with-
out note and comment," and on this subject I know not whether
their intention was to make an impression on your honorable body,
or to elicit a sympathetic echo elsewhere; but, whatever their ob-,
ject was, they have represented that even here Catholics have not
concealed their enmity to the Scriptures. Now, if I had asked this
honorable Board to exclude the Protestant Scriptures from the
schools, then there might have been some coloring for the current
calumny. But I have not done so. I say, gentlemen of every de-
nomination, keep the scriptures you reverence, but do not force on
me that which my conscience tells me is wrong. I may be wrong,
as you may be ; and as you exercise your judgment, be pleased to
allow the same privilege to a fellow being, who must appear before
our common God and answer for the exercise of it. I wish to do
nothing like what is charged upon me — that is not the purpose for
which we petition this honorable Board, in the name of the commu-
nity to which I belong ; I appear here for other objects, and if our
petition be granted our schools may be placed under the supervi-
sion of the public authorities, or even of commissioners, to be ap-
pointed by the Public School Society ; they may be put under the
same supervision as the existing schools, to see that none of those
phantoms, nor any grounds for those suspicions which are as un-
charitable as unfounded, can have existence in reality. There is,
then, but one simple question — will you compel us to pay a tax
from which we c^n receive no beiftfit, and to frequent schools which
injure and destroy our religious rights in the minds of our children,
and of which in our consciences we cannot approve ? That is the
simple question. Or, will you appoint some other system, or will
you leave the children of our denomination to grow up in that state
of ignorance which the School Society has expressed its desire to
save them from ? Or shall the constable be employed, as one rever-
end gentleman seems to recommend (Dr. Bangs), or some public
officer to catch them and send them to school ? For, from this mo^
ment, in consequence of the language used, and the insulting pas-
sages which those books contain, Catholic parents ■will not send
150 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
their children there, and any attempts to enforce attendance^ would
meet with vigorous resistance from them. I have now presented
what is, in reality, the simple issue ; it is no matter whether we be-
lieve right or not, for neither the Catholic nor the Protestant re,-
ligion is on trial here ; and I repeat, therefore, that the gentleman
who represents the Methodist Church has taken so much painsto
distil through the minds of this meeting, a mass of prejudice^ which
it will take several hours, but at the same time very little beside, for
me to refute and scatter to the winds. I shall, perhaps, not dwell
long on that part, because I judge it is irrelevant to the case in hand,
but still I shall feel authorized to trespass on the patience of the
meeting a short time, though but a short time, to remove the im-
l^roper prejudice which may have been created.
He says that the people have a right to interfere and to give to
the children of the State an intellectual education, that this must be
carried out in some form or other, and that this system is as little
objectionable as any that could be presented. That may be ; I do
not dispute the possibility of it, because it is unimportant; but if
he did mean to contend that that system which has been once sanc-
tioned must continue to be sanctioned, although its sanction was
merely by the tacit consent of the different denominations, and
although it should become violative of the religious rights of any,
then he goes beyond the limits which even the Constitution of the
land has made sacred. I have been represented as endeavoring to
create excitement on this subject. To that I shall refer imme-
diately ; but I may here refer to my objection to the existing sys-
tem, on the ground that it has a tendency to infidelity, and may
observe that I know clergymen of other denominations who are
also opposed to it on the ground of its infidel tendency. There are
many who have the conviction that it tends to infidelity, and who
know that the preventive referred to is not equal to stem the ten-
dency to infidelity which does exist.
The first gentleman who spoke, and he spoke with a frankness
and sincerity for which I give him credit, contended — and when I
answer his objection, I wish to be understood as speaking to all that
took up that objection — and it wa^ urged more or less by the whole —
that it was inconsistent to charge upon the system a tendency to
;■ ijfidelity, and then a teaching of religion, and that this teaching was
anti-catholic. Now this would b^ inconsistent under some circum-
stances; but the gentleman left out the grounds on which that
charge was made, and it will be proper, therefore, that I should
state those grounds. In the document which emanated from the
Board of Assistants last spring, they say that the smallest particle
of religion is a disqualification, and that "religious instruction is no
paj't of a common school education." Now, was it the intention of
your honorable body to exclude all religion ? Was it the intention
of the State Legislature? Did any public authority requii e that
the public school education should be winnowed as corn on a barn
floor, and all religion driven out by the winds of heaven as chaff not
BEFORE THE CITY OOTTNCIL. 131
■worthy to be. preserved ? Was there such authority ? Who luado
such a decision ? And yet that very decision, I ask you, if we are
not authorized to interpret as proof of the charge, that the system
has a tendency to infidelity ? For, banish religion, and infidelity
alone remains. And, on the other hand, we find the gentlemen of
the Public School Society themselves repeatedly stating that they
inculcate religion, and give religious impressions ; and I say it does
them credit ; for as far as they can they ought to teach religion.
It -would be better, if they did, for those who are satisfied with
THEiE religious teaching. This explanation will set us right in tho
minds of your honorable body. It is first said no religion is taught
and then it is admitted that religion is inculcated ; and next our
petition is opposed because it is alleged that if our prayer be granted
religion will be taught. What weight, then, is the objection of the
Public School Society entitled to, if this be the fact? And where
is our inconsistency ? If there is a dilemma, to whom are we in-
debted for it but to the Report of the Board of Assistants on the
one hand, and to the testimony of the JPublic School Society on the
other. Let us not, then, be charged with inconsistency.
■ Now, sir, I contend there is infidelity taught. I do not mean in
its gross form ; but I have found principles ef infidelity in the
books — and one that would pass current as a very amiable book — a
rehgious lesson which I would not suifer a child to read, over whom
I had any influence. The lesson represents a father and his son
going about on Sunday morning to the different churches, the little
boy asking questions as they pass along from one to the other; at
last the boy said to his father — I may not quote the words, but I
shall be found right in substance — " What is the reason there are so
many different sects ! Why do not all people agree to go to the
same place, and to worship God iu the same way!" "And why
should it not be so '?" replied the father. " Why should they agree ?
Do not people differ in other things ? Do they not differ in their
taste and their dress — some like their coats cut one way and some
another — and do they not differ in their appetites and food ? and in
the hours they keep and in their diversion ?" N'ow, I ask if there
is no infidelity in that ? I ask if it is a proper lesson to teach chil-
dren, that as they have a right to form their own tastes for dress
and food, they have the right to judge for themselves in matters of
religion ? for, with deference to the Public School Society, children
are too young to have such principles instilled into them. Let '
them grow up, before they are left to exercise tEeir judgment in
such weighty matters ; at least, do not teach Catholic children such
a lesson at so early an age ; and', in all I have said, I desire to be
understood as abstaining most carefully from prescribing any rule,
or method, or book, for any denomination with which I am not con-
nected. But for Catholic children I speak, and I say it is too early
for them to judge for themselves. And is this all ? No, sir ; one
other passage, and for that 'there may perhaps be something to be
said as to its defence, because it in from the pen of an eminent
152 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
Protestant divine, the Bishop of London. I presume the Bishop of
London, when he wrote that passage, must have been writing on
some subject connected with infidehty ; he must have been writing
against infidehty, and indulging in a range of argument which might
be proper for sucli a subject, but out of place in the hands of com-
mon-school children. What was that passage ? Why, it is one
which represents the Divine Redeemer as a man of respectable
talents.
Mr. Ketchum rose, and intimated his doubt of such a passage
being in the books.
The Right Rev. Prelate continued. I have read it in their
books, but the Trustees hare recalled them. I hope not for the
purpose of depriving me of the opportunity of quoting the page.
Such a lesson is now to be found in one of the books, which repre-
sents the Divine Redeemer as showing uncommon quickness of pen-
etration and sagacity. I ask whether such a lesson is a proper one
for children, and whether such is the instruction to be given to them
of the Redeemer of the world ? The gentleman- who first spoke,
said it was not in reality religion that was taught, but mere moral-
ity that was inculcated — the propriety of telling the truth and of
fulfilling all moral (pities. If this be true, it is still strange that the
School Society should prefer the word " religious." He did not
deny that it Avas a kind of religion, and that the precepts of
the Decalogue were inculcated, and while the Public School Society
admit that religion is inculcated — and the legal gentleman, their
representative, does not disclaim it, so far as it forms the ground-
work of a good moral character — it may be taken as admitted.
And now, if they teach rehgion, let us know what it is to be. Let
them not delegate to the teachers, some of whom may teach one
religion, some another, the authority or permission to make " reli-
gious impressions," to give " religious instruction," to give a " right
direction to the mind of youth," and all the other phrases which we
find in their documents. Now, on the subject of religion and morals,
would they teach morals without rehgion, which I conceive will be
found as visionary as castle-building in the air. Mr. Ketchum says
they are taught not to lie, but without religion he furnishes no mo-
. tive for not lying. If a man tells me not to lie, when it is my interest
to lie, I, as a rational being, want a motive for telling the truth.
My love of gain tells me if I lie, and lie successfully, it wnll add to my
fortune ; and if I am told to abstain from lying, at the risk of my
fortune, let me have a reason. But if I am told there is God to
whom I am accountable, that is a motive ; but, then, it is a teaching
of religion. Yes, sir, when I am told there is a God, I am taught
religion ; and therefore I am astonished that the Report Avhich has
gone forth from the other Board should declare that the smallest
teaching of religion vitiates the claim. You may as well think to
build an edifice without a foundation, as to pretend to produce
moral effects without religious belief.
There may not be the details of religion, but there must be the
BEPOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 15?
principle, to a certain extent, otherwise you cannot lay the founda-
tion of good morals for men. Now, sir, I will show you that Mr.
Stephen Girard, of Philadelphia, who had no religious belief what-
ever, in his will, by which he bequeathed large sums of money for
the purpose of procuVing great and material benefits to society — but
which has been looked upon by many Christians, of every denomi-
nation, in Philadelphia, rather as a curse than a blessing — even he
speaks of morality without religion nearly as the Public School
Society does. He says :
" Secondly, I enjoin and require tbat no ecclesiastic", missionary, or minister, of
any sect wliatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatsoever
in the said College ; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose,
or as a visitor, ■within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said Col-
lege. In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any
sect or person whatever ; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a
diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans
■who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which
clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce. My Hesire is,
that all the instructors and teachers in the College shall take pains to instill into
the minds of "the scholars the purest principles of imorality, so that on their en-
trance into active life they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence
towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopt-
ing at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable
them to prefer."
He left two millions of dollars to the city of Philadelphia, pro-
vided that poor orphans should be brought up to respect infidelity.
He did not say a word against religion, but he took care to stand
by, not personally, but by his executors, in his will, to prevent its
precepts being inculcated in the minds of those who are the depen-
dents on his bounty. They were to have the purest principles of
morals instilled into their minds ; but the attempt is vain when re-
ligion is not placed as the foundation of morals.
He, like the Public School Society, stands by to see th.at the pot-
ter shall give no form to the vase, till the clay grows stiff and hard-
ened. Then it will be too late.
The gentlemen also made objection to our schools, because, he
said, they were in our churches. The fact is, we were obliged to
provide them where we could, and our means would permit ; and
there are some of them in the basement of our churches. And he
conceived it impossible to keep them from sectarian influence, be-
cause the children would be within hearing of the chant of divine
service ; as though sectarianism depended on geographical distances
from church. But this could not have been a valid objection, be-
cause the Public School Society has had not only schools under
churches, but in the session rooms of churches.
I shall refer now to the learned gentlemen who followed him (Mr.
Ketchum), and I can only say that this gentleman,' with a great deal
of experience in this particular question, really seems to me to con-
firm all I say on the ground we have taken. I know he lectured me
pretty roundly on the subject of attending the meetings held under
154 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
St. James' church. I know he did more for me than the Pope : the
Pope " mitred" me but once, but he did so three or four times dur-
ing the course of his address. He read me a homily on the duties
of station ; and he so far forgot his country and her principles, as to
call it a " descent" on my part, when I mingled in a popular meet-
ing of freemen. But it was no descent ; and I hope the time will
ne\-er come when it will be deemed a descent for a man in office to
mingle with his fellow-citizens when convened for legitimate and
honorable purposes.
But from his speech it would appear, that his experience has been
obtained by the discharge of the duty of standing advocate of de-
nial ; and yet, with all his experience and opportunities of research,
his inability to overturn our grounds confirms me in the conviction
that they are not to be removed, e\en by the aid of splendid talents ;
for that speech, like most others, went on the false issue that we
want privileges. But we want no privilege. That speech, like the
speech from the throne, might have been the speech of years past,
and might have been stereotyped ; for its only novelty, which proved
to me that it was not all the work of antiquity, was the part which
appertained to mysfelf. And not only that, but I have to say, that
when I came into this hall — and it is the first time I ever stood in
an assembly of this description — I felt that I was thrown on the
hospitality of the professional gentleman ; and I think if I and that
gentleman could have exchanged places, I should not have looked
so hard at him as he did at me. In fact, throughout that speech he,
with peculiar emphasis, and a manner which he may, perhaps, have
acquired in his practice in courts of law, fixed upon me a steady
gaze — and he has no ordinary countenance — and addressed me so
solemnly, that I really expected every moment he would forget him-
self, and say "the prisoner at the bar." (Laughter.) He did not,
however. Pie passed that over ; and whilst I recognize and respect
the ^' human face divine," because God made it to look upward, I may
here observe, that it has no power to frighten me, even if it wdvld
be terrible ; and therefore I was not at all disturbed by the hard
looks which he gave me. The gentleman will pardon me, I hope^ in
this, for it is natural enough, after what has been said — though, I
know it was said in good humor, to claim the privilege to retort.
Well, sir, this was not all, but he told us something about going
to the stake. He was sure, if any of the public money was voted to
the denomination of a reverend gentleman, whose name I will not
mention, the Catholics would go to the stake, l^ow, sir, we have
no intention to do so. We know the public money does go to the
support of religion ; it_goes to the support of chaplaincies, theologi-
cal seminaries, imiversities, and chaplains of institutions whose ap-
pointments are permanent ; and be it remembered, that one of the
first lectures delivered in one institution, the University of this city,
which was aided from the public funds, was on the anti-republican
tendency of Popery. And yet we did not go to the stake for that;
and why ? Because, though our portion of taxation mingles with
BEPOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 155
the rest, we have no objections to the use of it wliich the law pre-
scribes, so long as no inalienable rights of our own are involved in
the sacrifice.
But, again, he said, if any of the money was appropriated to the
Catholic religion, Protestants would go to the stake. I will not
say whether Protestants are so exclusive ; while we submit to taxa-
tion for Protestant purposes, without going to the stake, whether,
if we participate, they will go to the stake, is not for me to say.
Then he came to the Protestant Bible, " -without note or comment ;"
and " it was hard for him to part with that translated Bible." lie
stood by it, and repeated that " it was hard to give up the Bible,"
just as if I had said one word against it ; and as if I was about lo
bring the Pope to banish it out of the Protestant world, or wished
to deprive any man who venerates it of any Use he may think proper
to make of it. And there, again, he looked so much as if he were
in earnest, that, at one time, I thought he was actually about to rush
to the " stake." But there was no stake there to go to, except that
which he holds in the exchequer of the Public School Society. It is
a most comfortable way of going to martyrdom.
Sir, the gentleman taunted me for having attended the public
meetings of Catholics on this subject, and he imputed the prejudice
which exists against the Public School system to the observations I
have made, as though it were of my creation. In answer to that I
may state, what has been the fact for years, that Catholics have been
struggling to have schools, and to the extent of their means we
have them ; and what is the reason ? Do you suppose that we
should impose additional burdens upon ourselves, if we were sat-
isfied with those Public Schools ? Do you suppose we should
have paid for our bread a second time, if that which these schools
offered had not, in our opinion, been turned to a stone ? No, the
existence of our own schools proves that I ha\e not excited the
prejudice ; but still it is at all times my duty to warn my people
against that which is destructive or violative to the religion they
profess ; and if they abandon their religion they are free ; but so
long as they are attached to our religion, it is my duty, as their
pastor, as the faithful guardian of their principles and morals, to
warn them when there is danger of imbibing poison instead of whole-
some food. That is the reason ; and I am sorry that he has not
found a motive less unworthy of me than that he has been pleased
to assign.
Then — and I may as well take up the question now as elsewhere —
it has been said that it is conceived to be an inconsistency in our
argument, that we object to the Public Schools because religion is
taught in them, and yet, in the schools which we propose to estab-
lish, or rather, which we have established, but for -wjiich we now
plead, we profess to teach no sectarianism ; and the qtiestion arises,
" if you are opposed to religion in these schools because it is secta-
rianism, how can you teach religion in your schools, and yet your
schools n6t be sectarian ?" This is the position in which they place
156 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOI^^D SPEECH .
ns ; and it; answer I have to state, that, in the first place, we do not
intend to teach religion. We shall be willing that they shall be
placed nnder the same inspection that the Public Schools are now;
and if it should be found that religion is taught, we will be willing
that you shall cut them off. You shall be the judges. You may see
that the law is complied with, and if we violate it, let ns be deprived
of the benefits for which the conditions were prescribed. But there
is neutral ground on which onr children may learn to read and
cipher. If they read, it must be something that is written ; words
are signs of ideas, and in the course of their instruction they may
be made so to shape their studies as to loathe Catholicism, without
learning any other religion. And this could be produced, not alone
in reference to Catholics, but Presbyterians, Methodists, Unitarians,
or any other. They might find that their children disregard their
«wn religion, while they are not taught any other. Suppose the
Presbyterians,' or any other denomination, were in the minority, and
Catholics were numerically what Protestants are now, and therefore
were able to decide what lessons their children should read in these
schools, I ask you if the gentleman would not conceive he had rea-
sonable objections, if they had forced upon them a system of educa-
tion which teaches that their denomination, past, present, and td
come, was deceitful? ISTow, take up these books, which teach all
that is infamous in our history ; which teach our children about the
"execution of Cranmer," the "burning of Huss," and "the character
of Luther." If such a practice were reversed, what would he do ?
Now, in our schools, I would teach them ; I would give our chil-
dren lessons for exercise in reading, that should teach them that
when the young tree of American liberty was planted, it was watered
with Catholic blood, and that therefore we have as much right to
everything common in this country as others. I should teach them
that Catholic bishops and Catholic barons at Runneymede wrung
the charter of our liberties — the grand parent of all known liberty
in the world — from the hands of a tyrant. I should teach them
where to find the bright spots on our history, though the gentleman
who represents the Methodists knew not where they were to be
found. This I would do, and should I violate the law ? If, instead
of the burning of Huss, I gave them a chapter on the character of
Charles Carroll of Carrollton, as a reading lesson, would that be
teaching them of purgatory, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation ?
But if our circumstances were reversed, so that Catholics con-
trolled the public schools, would not Presbyterians have a right to
complain ?— and should not we be tyrants while we refused to listen
to their complaints, if we spread before their children lessons on the
burning'of Servetus by Calvin, and on the hangings of members of the
Society of Friends by those who held Calvin's doctrines ? I should
listen to their appeal in such a case with feelings far different from
those manifested by them in regard to others. But I would do
more, in order that those little vagrants, of whom the gentleman
speaks, might come into school. Their j)arents themselvfts having
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 157
by persecution been deprived, in many instances, of an education, do
not fully appreciate its advantages, and if you seek to enforce the
attendance of their children, they will resist; if you attempt to
coerce them you -will not succeed. But if you put them in a way
to be admitted without being dragged by force to the school, or
without destroying their religious principles when they enter (which
you have no right to do), then you will prepare good citizens, edu-
cated to the extent that will make them useful to their country.
Then their parents, having confidence in their pastors, will send
their children to schools approved of by them — and the children
themselves may attend schools where they need not be ashamed of
their creed, and where their companions will not call them " Papists,"
and tell them that ignorance and vice are the accompaniments of
their religion. That will be the result, and I conceive it will be
beneficial.
Much has been said about the distinction between morality and
religion, and about those certain broad principles on which it is
thought all can agree. And yet our opponents contend — and I am
surprised at the circumstance — gentlemen who are not only Chris-
tians themselves, but Christian ministers, contend all through for
the rights of those who are not of the Christian religion, but are
commonly called infidels. An attempt has been made to draw a
distinction between morality and religion. "I have already said, and
there is not a gentleman here who will pretend to deny it, that mo-
rality must rest on religion for its basis. I refer you, and it is not
an ordinary authority, to a man who passed through life with the
most beautiful character and the most blameless reputation that ever
fell to the lot of a public man ; one who was distinguished almost
above all other men ; one, of whom it would be profane to say that
he was inspired, yet, of Avhom history has not handed down one
useless action, or one single idle word, a man who left to his coun-
try an inheritance of the brightest example, and the fairest name
^that ever soldier or statesman bequeathed to a nation — that man was
Geoege Washingtos-. Hear what he says in his Farewell Ad-
dress, on the attempt now being made to preserve morality whilst
religion is discarded from the public schools.
" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion
and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the trib-
ute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happi-
ness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician,
equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them, A volume could
not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it be simply
asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of re-
ligious obligations deseet the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in
courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality
can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence
of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both for-
bid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious prin-
<aple.
" 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular
government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of
158 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon
attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?"
Such is the warning, the solemn warning of this great man. If
you take away religion, on what foundation do you propose to rear
the structure of morality ? No— they stand to each other m the
relation of parent and offspring, or rather they are kmdred prm-
ciples from the same divine source, and what God has jomed to-
gether, let no man put asunder.
Now, with regard to all said by me against the Protestant Bible,
I appeal to this honorable body whether I ever said one word
hostile to that Bible ; and yet, from the address of the gentlemen
on the other side, men abroad, who should read their speeches,
would be led to believe that I not only entertained, but that I had
uttered sentiments of hostility to that work. And it is ever thus
that our principles and our feelings are misrepresented,^ while gentle-
men profess to be conscious of entertaining no prejudice against us
as Catholics. One gentleman, however, avowed his hostility to us
on this ground, and for his candor I tender my acknowledgment.
The whole effort of some of the gentlemen, indeed of all who have
spoken on the subject, has been to show that the system must be
made so broad and liberal that all can agree in it — but I think they
contend for too much when they wish so to shape religion and
balance it on its pedestal as to make it suit every body and every
sect ; for if infidels are to be suited, and it is made to rconcile them
to the system, I want to know whether Catholics or any other class
are not entitled to the right to have it made to suit them. And if
everybody is to be made satisfied, why is it that Catholics and
others are discontented and excluded ? Is it not manifest that what
they profess to accomplish is beyond their reach ? Now the infidels
have found able advocates in the reverend gentlemen who have spoken
in the course of this discussion — I mean the interests of infidelity —
and why is it, then, that the gentlemen who plead for that side of
the question, enter their protest against ours ? I should like to
know why there is this inconsistency. If the rule is to be general,
why is itjiot general ?
I pass now to the reasoning of one learned gentleman who spoke
yesterday, and defended the Protestant Bible. Now this was un-
necessary in that gentleman — it was in him a work of supereroga-
tion to vindicate the Protestant Scriptures — it was useless to defend
a point which had not been attacked. It was time lost ; and yet,
perhaps, not altogether lost ; for in some respects it may have been
profitable enough. In entering on its defence, he said it was the
instrument of human liberty throughout the world — wherever it
was, there was light and liberty ; and where it was not, there was
bondage and darkness ; and he brought it round so, that he almost
asserts that our Declaration of independence has been copied from
the Bible. No doubt the just and righteous principles on which
that Declaration has its foundation, have their sanction in the Bible,
but I d«ny their immediate connection, and on historical grounds,
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 159
for it is known that its author looked u^on St. Paul as an imposter ;
consequently their connection is not historically true. But while
the gentleman referred to our notes (but which we disown and re-
pudiate), as containing principles of persecution — how was it that
after the Protestant Bible, " without note and comment," came into
use, every denomination of Protestants in the whole world that had
the misfortune, for it must have been a misfortune, to be yoked to
civil power, wielded the sword of persecution, and derived their
authority for so doing from the nalced text? Yes, in Scotland, in all
her confessions of faith — in England, and I appeal to her penal laws
against Catholics, and those acts by which the Puritans and Dis-
, senters were pursued, men who had the misfortune, like ourselves,
to have a conscience, were driven out, and all was done on the autho-
rity of the Bible, without note or comment, and for the public good
and the good of the Church. I do not say that the Bible sanctioned
persecution, but I deny that the absence of notes is an adequate
preventive. I refer to history. And almost to this day, though
the Bible has been translated three hundred years, even in liberal
governments, the iron heel of persecution has been placed on the
dearest rights of Catholics. The gentleman to whom I alluded
said, no doubt, what he knew would be popular out of doors,
for he' seems, with others, to imagine that the world began at the
period of the Reformation. Ho seems to think that everything
great originated at that period. But does he not know that eight
hundred editions of the Bible had been printed before the Reforma-
tion ? And does he not know that two hundred editions had been
circulated in the common tongue, in the common language of the
country ? And has he yet to learn that the first prohibition to read
the Bible came not from a Catholic, but from a Protestant — from
Protestant Henry VHI., of " glorious memory ?" He was the first
to issue a prohibition, and it was not till Catholics saw the evil — not
of the Bible, but the bad uses men were making of the Bible, that
they placed its perusal under certain restrictions, and cautioned their
people against hastily judging of it for themselves. All had been
united and harmonious, but by the use, or abuse, which men made
of the Bible, all became doubt and speculation, the positive revela-
tion of Christ was shaken or destroyed. They saw this Bible, and
what then ? But, while these school gentlemen contend that it is
a shield against infidelity, and that all sects here agree, how is it out
of the schools? Why, no sects agree upon it. How is it that the
Bible, which is given by the inspiration of God, the God of truth,
is made use of in this city even, to prove a Trinity, and to disprove
a Trinity? How is it that Trinitarians quote it to prove their doc-
trines, and Unitarians quote it to establish the opposite doctrines ?
How is it that whilst one says from the Bible that God the Father
is God alone, and that Christ is not equal to Him, for He says, " J%e
Father is greater than /," another argues from the same Bible that
the Father and Son are equal, because Christ says '■'■The Father and
I are one P^ And another comes with tho Bible in his hand, and
160 AECHBISHOP HUGHES SECOND SPEECH
says, I believe, and I can prove it from this Bible that Christ alone
is the Almighty God, and the Father and the Spirit are only attri-
butes of the same person ! Why, this Bible which they say is the
foundation of Jill truth, and they say well, when it is truly under-
stood, a grace which God can vouchsafe, and, no doubt. He does to
many, this Bible is harmonious in its every doctrine. But that is
not the point — the point is the uses we see men make of it, and this
is the sum of our reason that we wish our children not to be taught
in the manner in which Protestant children are taught in reference
to the Bible.
And then, again, if you teach that there is a hell, according to
the Bible, others will contend that the Scriptures teach no such doc-,
trine, and so I might pass on to other points, to show you whilst
they thus contend for the Bible as the guide to truth, there is this
disagreement among them, at least in this country, where human
rights and liberties are understood as allowing every man to judge
for himself. Is there not, then, danger — is there no ground to ap-
prehend that when our children read this Bible, and find that all
these different sects father all their contradictions on the Bible as
their authority, they will derive their first notions of infidelity from
these circumstances ? But there is another ground on which it is
manifest we cannot allow our children to be taught by them.
Whilst we grant them the right to take, if they please, the Protes-
tant Bible as the rule of their faith, and the individual right to
judge of the Bible — and this great principle they proclaim as the
peculiar and distinctive, and most glorious trait in their religious
character and history — and let them boast of it, there is no diiiiculty
on the subject — they interpret the Bible by the standard of reason,
and therefore, as there is no given standard of reason — as one has
more and another less — they scarcely ever arrive at the same result,
while the Bible, the eternal Word of God, remains the same. But
this is not a Catholic principle. Catholics do not believe that God
has vouchsafed the promise of the Holy Spirit to every individual,
but that He has given His Spirit to teach the Church collectively,
and to guide the Church, and therefore we do not receive as the
Bible except what the Church guarantees ; and wanting this guar-
antee, the Methodist gentleman failed to establish the book, which
he produced with its notes, as a Catholic Bible. We do not take
the Bible on the authority of a " King's Printer," who is a specu-
lating publisher, who publishes it but as a speculation. And why ?
Because by the change of a single comma, that which is positive
may be made negative, and vice versa, and then is it the Bible of the
inspired writers ? It is not. They proclaim, then, that theirs is a
Christianity of reason ; of this they boast, and let them glory. Ours
is a Christianity of faith; ours descends by the teaching of the
Church ; Ave are never authorized to introduce new doctrines, be-
cause "vve contend that no new doctrine is true, from the time of the
apostles, unless it has come from the mind of God by a special reve-
lation, and to us that is not manifest among the reformers. We aro
BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 161
satisfied to trust our eternal interests, for weal or woe, on the se-
curity of tliat Catholic Church, and the veracity of the divine prom-
ises. You perceive, therefore, that PjwDtestants may agree in the
system where this Bible is thus introduced ; but it is not in accord-
ance with the principles of Catholics, that each one shall derive
therefrom his own notions of Christianity. It is not the principle
of Catholics, because they believe in the incompetence of individual
reason, in matters of such importance. It is from this self-sufficiency
and imputed capacity that men derive such notions of self-confidence.
which, owing to a want of power to control in some domestic cir-
cles, if taught to our children, lead to disobedience and disregard
of the parental authority.
I have been obliged to enter into this, which is rather theological
than otherwise, to put you in possession of the true ground. We
do not take the Protestant Bible, but we do not wish others not
to take it if they desire it. If conscience be stifled, you do not
make us better men or better citizens, and therefore I say, gentle-
men, respect conscience, even though you think it in error, jsrovided
it does not conflict with the public rights.
I have sufficiently disposed of the addresses of the two legal gen-
tlemen who have spoken. I will now call the attention of this hon-
orahle body to the remarks of the reverend gentleman who spoke in
relation to the Rhemish Testament. I did use, sir, yesterday an
expression which I used with reluctance ; but when we were charged
before this honorable body — when the reverend gentleman who
represents a numerous denomination, charged us with teaching the
lawfulness of murdei'ing heretics, that expression carae on me as
a thunderbolt, because I thought that truth should proceed from the
lips of age and a man of character. And, sir, I knew that position
was not true, and that it was an easy matter to assert a thing, but
not so easy to disprove it. I might take advantage of circumstan-
ces to charge a man with things that it would take weeks to dis-
prove, and therefore I thought it necessary to nail that slanderous
statement to the counter before it could have its designed influence
here or elsewhere. That gentleman began with great humility,
and with professions of being devoid of prejudice, and then he said
that those meetings to which he referred, and which he called "pub-
lic gatherings," had caused him to feel greatly alarmed about this
question, as if the stability of your Republic was endangered, pro-
vided Catholic children received the benefits of a common school
education ! He said I had applied certain remarks to the creed of
the Society of Friends, and, though perhaps it was somewhat out
of order, but wishing to set the gentleman right, I denied that I had
done so. But since then the reporter has handed me the notes taken
of what I did say, and from them also it appears that I said no such
thing. He referred.to the practice of teaching religion in the schools ;
but of that I have disposed already.
He then, while going through the introductory part of the re-
monstrance of the Methodist Episcopal Church, threw out constantly
11
163 ARCHBISHOP HTTGHES SECOND SPEECH
calumnious charges against the Catholic Church and the Catholic
religion ; he did not throw them out as assertions but by inuendo, as
"if it be true," and "I should like to know," as if I am here for the
pui'pose of supplying everything he would "like to know." .And how
can I meet him when insinuation is the form in which his charges
are thrown out? Why, their very feebleness takes from an opponent
the power of refutation. But when he comes to something tangible,
then I can meet him. Having gone through a series of insinuations,
he misrepresents our intentions, notwithstanding we disclaim such
an intention, he indulges in the gratuitous supposition that if
your honorable body should grant our petition, we shall secretly
teach the Catholic religion. But if we do, is not the law as potent
against us as against the public schools ? If they teach religion, as
they acknowledge, why may not we ? We. are not grasping to
obtain power over others, but we desire in sincerity to benefit a por-
tion of our own neglected children. I shall pass over, therefore,
a great deal of what the gentleman " would like to know," for I do
not know if it is of importance to the subject. He said this Rhemish
Testament was published by authority ; but he began by a retreat,
and not by a direct charge : he did " not profess to say that our
Church approved of it ;" but it was printed and published, and it
was not on the " Index," as if every bad book in the world must be
in the Index; and with this evidence of fact, he comes here and
spreads before the American people the slander and calumny that the
Catholics by their notes and comments teach the lawfulness of mur-
dering heretics. Now, sir, I will take up that book and the parts
he read with the notes, giving an explanation as though they came
from Catholics. Do you know the history of that book, sir ? If
not, I can tell you. When Queen Elizabeth scourged the Catholics
from, their altars, and drove them into exile, these men held a com-
mon notion, which was natural and just, that England was their
country, and that they were suiFering unmerited persecution. The
new religion, not satisfied with toleration for itself, grasped the sub-
stance of things, grasped the power of the State, seized all their
temples ; and not even satisfied with this, scourged the Catholics
from their home and country ; and they did write these notes, and
why? They wrote them in exile, smarting under the lash and the
torture, and in connection, too, with a plan for the invasion of Eng-
land by PhiUp II. of Spain. Their object was to disseminate amongst
Catholics of England disaffection to Queen Elizabeth, and thus
dispose them to join the true Catholics and oppose the heretics,
because the heretics were their enemies, were the enemies of their
rights, and had crushed them. But when that book appeared in
England, was there a single approval given it, a single Catholic that
received it ? Not one. When it was published for political ends —
to aid the invasion of Philip — did the English Catholics receive it ?
Never. But the gentleman said it was published by the Bishops of
Ireland, and with their approbation, and with the approbation of a
great number of the Catholic clergy; and this after his own ad-
BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 103
mission that, insomuch as it had not been approved by the Holy
See, the Bishop of Rome, it was not of authority in the Cathohc
Church. Now I shall take up both parts, and first I should like to
know where is his authority •'hat it was published by the Bishops
of Ireland ? I pause for a i eply, and I shall not consider it an
interruption.
Dr. Bond. Do you wish an answer ?
Bishop Hughes. I do, sir; I desire yoiir authority.
Dr. Bond. Why, if we are to believe history, it is true ; it ia
stated in the "British Critic."
Bishop Hughes. Oh ! I am satisfied.
Dr. Bond. It could not have been reviewed, if it did not exist.
Bishop Hughes. Oh ! it is here ; and that proves its existence,
without the " British Critic." It was gone out of print again, and
not a Catholic now heard of it ; but your liberal Protestant clergy-
men of New York republished it. What for ? To bring infamy
on the Catholic name ; and it was from this Protestant edition, and
not from Ireland, that the Methodist gentleman received it. I am
now not surprised at his saying so often that he would " like to
know," for a little more knowledge would be of great advantage to
him. I need not read it.
Dr. Bond. Oh, you had better.
Bishop Hughes. Well, sir, anything to accommodate you.
" It is a remarkiible fact, that notwithstanding the whole New Testament, as it was
translated and explaincid by the members of the Jesuit College at Rheims, in 1582,
has been republished in a great number of editions, and their original annotations,
either more or less extensively, have been added to the text ; yet as a work it is
appealed to as an authority ; the Roman Church admit both the value of the book
and the obligation of the Papists to believe its contents. We have no more strik-
ing modern instance to prove this deceitfulness."
It must be recollected that this is a Protestant publication ; the
Catholics did not circulate it, but the Protestant ministers did, to
mislead their flocks and to bring infamy on their Catholic fellow-
citizens.
" The Douay Bible is usually so called, because although the New Testament
was first translated aud published at Rheims, yet the Old Testament was printed
some years after at Douay; the English Jesuits having removed their monastery
from Rheims to Douay, before their version of the Old Testament was completed.
In the year 1816, an edition, including both the Dnuay Old, and the Rhemish Kew
Testament, was issued at Dublin, containing a large number of comments, replete
with impiety, irreligion, and the most fiery persecution. That edition was }jub-
lished under the direction of all the dignitaries of the Roman Hierarchy in Ire-
land, and about three hundred others of the most influential subordinate priests."
Now, I called for the gentleman's evidence of this, and the gen-
tleman was found minus habens — he has it not to give. The prints
said so, and he believed the prints ! Now, sir, this is a grave charge,
and I am disposed to treat it gravely ; but I should not feel worthy
of the name of a man, I should feel myself unworthy of being a mem-
ber ol the American family, if I had not rifien and repelled such a
charge as it deserved.
164 ABCHBrSHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
Dr. Bond. You have not read all I read.
Bishop Hu GHEs. I will read all the gentleman may wish, if he
will not keep me here reading all night.
" The notea which urged the hatred and murder of Protestants, attracted the
attention of the British churches, and, to use the words of T. Hartwell Home, that
edition of the Rhemish Testament, printed at Dublin in 1816, corrected and revised
and approved by Dr. Troy, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, was reviewed
by the ' British Critic,' vol. viii., pp. 296-308 ; new series ; and its dangerous tenets,
both civil and religious, were exposed."
That is the testimony.
Dr. Bond. There is another paragraph.
Bishop Hughes. Well, I will read the other.
" This publication, with many others of a similar character produced so great an
excitement in Britain, that finally some of the most prominent of the Irish Roman
prelates we»e called before the English Parliament to prove their own work. Then,
and upon oath, with all official Bolemnity, they peremptorily disclaimed the vol-
umes published by their own instigation, and under their own supervision and aus-
pices, as books of no authority; because they had not been ratified by the Pope,
and received by the whole Papal church."
Now, what authority have we for this charge of perjury against
the Irish bishops, better than the gentleman's own ? It is so stated
here ; what authority is there for that ?
Dr. Bond. It was so stated before the British Parhament.
Bishop Hughes. I should regret, on account of your age, if I
used any expression that might be deemed harsh.
Dr. Bond. Take the liberty to say what you please.
Bishop Hughes. With regard to these notes, I have to observe,
that they were written in an age (1582) when the rights of con-
science were but little understood. Protestants in that age every-
where persecuted, not only Catholics, but each other. And long
after, the Puritans of New England, with the Bible, and without
notes, persecuted with torture, and even to hanging their fellow-
Protestants. It was not wonderful, therefore, if in such an age
Catholics were found to entertain the opinions set forth in the notes.
But, bad as they are, it is remarkable that they do not sustain the
calumnious charge of the reverend gentleman, that they " teach the
lawfulness of murdering heretics."
And now, sir, let me call your attention to the book itself.
In the 13th chapter of St. Matthew there is this text, at the 29th
verse. It occurs in the parable of the cockle (in the Protestant
version, (ares) and the wheat, in answer to Christ's disciples, who
asked : " Wilt thou that we gather it up ?" And he said, " No : lest
perhaps, gathering tip the cockles, you may root up the wheat also to-
gether with it." The annotation on this is :
" Ver. 29. Lest youphick uy also. The good must tolerate the evil, when it is
so strong that it cannot be repressed without danger and disturbance of the whole
Chiirch, and commit the matter to God's judgment in the latter day. Otherwise,
where ill men, be they heretics or other malefactors; may be punished or sup^
pressed without disturbance and hazard of the good, they may, and ought, by
public authority, either spiritua; (r temporal, to be chastised or executed.''
BEFOKB THE CITY COUNCIL. 165
They may and ought, " hy public authority /" Why, the propo-
Bition of the gentleman was, that Catholics were taught to kill their
Protestant neighbors. Now, there is not throughout the whole
volume a proposition so absurd as the idea conveyed by hhn. Bad
as the notes are, they require falsification to .bear him out.
Again, Luke ix. 64-55: "And when his disciples James and John
had see7i it, they said, Lord wilt thou we say that fire come down from
heaven and consume them? And turning, he rebuked them, saying,
You know not of what spirit you are." Annotation:
Ver. 55. He rebuked them. Not justice, nor all rigorous punishment of sinners
is here forbidden, nor Elias's fact reprehended, nor the Church or Christian princes
blamed for putting heretics to death. But none of these should be done for desire
of our particular revenge, or without discretion and regard of their amendment,
and" example to others. Therefore Peter used his power upon Ananias and Saphira
when he struck them both down to death for defrauding the Church."
*
I am afraid I shall fatigue this honorable body by going over
these notes ; nor is it necessary that I should follow the gentleman
in all his discursive wanderings. There is nothing in this to author-
ize the murdering of heretics.
But again, Luke xiv. 23. "And the Lord said to the servant, Go
forth unto the ways and hedges ; and compel them to enter, thai my
house may be filled." Annotation :
" Compel them.. The vehement pei'suasion that God uaeth, both externally, by
force of his word and miracles, and internally by his grace, to bring us unto him,
is called compelling: not that he forceth any one to come to him against their
wills, but that he can alter and mollify a hard heart, and make him willing, that
before would not. Augustine, also, referreth this compelling to the penal laws,
which Catholic princes do justly use against heretics and schismatics, proving that
they who are by their former profession in baptism subject to the Catliolio Church,
and are departed from the same after sects, may and ouglit to be compelled into
the unity and society of the Universal Church again ; and therefore, in this sense,
by the two former parts of the parable, the Jews first, and secondly the Gentiles,
that never believed before in Christ, were invited by fair, sweet means only; but
by the third, such are invited as the -Church of God hath power over, because they
promised in baptism, and therefore are to be revoked not only by gentle means,
but by just punishment also."
Sir, the punishment of spiritual offences and the allusions here
made to it, have their roots too deep and too wide-spreading to be
entered into and discussed in the time that I could occupy this eve-
ning. It would be impossible to go over the historical grounds
which suggest themselves in connection with the subject, to show
the results to the state of society which grew unavoidably out of
the breaking up of the Roman Empire, and the incursion of new
and uncivilized nations and tribes. Society had been dissolved,
with all the order and laws of the ancient civilization. It was the
slow work of the Church to re-organize the new and crude materials ;
to gather and arrange the fragments ; to re-model society and social
institutions as best she might. There was no other power that
could digest the crude mass ; the fierce infusions of other tongues
166 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
and tribes and nations that had, during the chaos, become mixed up
with the remains of ancient Roman civilization. She had to begm
by religion, their conversion to Christianity being the first step ;
and the Catholic Church being the only one in existence. Hence
the laws of religion are the first with which those new populations
became acquainted, and the only ones that could restrain them.
Hence, too, what is called canon law went before, and civil law
gradually followed, oftentimes mixed with and deriving its force
from the older form of legislation. The actual state of society made
it unavoidable that this should be the order of things. Civil gov-
ernments oftentimes engrafted whole branches of the ecclesiastical
law in their secular codes ; and ecclesiastical judges were often the
interpreters and administrators of both.
Canonical law and civil law, thus blended, became the Codes 'of
civil government, from the necessity of the case, and it is to this
state of things that the authors of the notes make allusion in their
text. But, as I have remarked, the subject is too deep to be prop-
erly discussed on this occasion, when time is so brief, and so many
speakers to be replied to.
We now come to Acts xxv. 11 :
" / appeal to Cmsar. If Paul, both to save himself from whipping and from
death, sought by the Jews, doubted not to cry for honor of the Eoman laws, and
to appeal to Coesar, the Prince of the Eomans, not yet Christened, how much more
may we call for aid of Christian princes and their laws, for the punishment of her-
etics, and for the Church's defence against them. Autfml. Jipist. 50."
Here you see the working of human interest ; and it is not the
first time, among Protestants and Catholics, nor will it be the last,
that men have made the Word of God and sacred things a stepping-
stone to promote temporal interests. They say there, "Heretics
have banished us, and is it not naturally the interest of Catholics to
join a Catholic prince to put down our stern persecutors?" As if
they had said to their fellow-Catholics of England, a Catholic prince
will sooi} make a descent on our country, it will be your duty, as it
is your interest, to join in putting down the heretic Elizabeth, who
has driven us from our country.
I go now to Hebrews x. 29: '■'• How mvch more, think you, doth
he deserve worse punishments who hath trodden the Son of God under
foot, and esteemed the blood of the Testament polluted wherein he is
sanctified, and hath done contrarihj to the spirit of grace ?" Anno-
tation :
" The blood of the Textamenl. Whosoever maketli no more of the blood of Christ's
sacrifice, either as shed upon the cross or in the chalice of the altar, for our Saviour
calleth (hat the blood of the New Testament, than he doth of the blood of calves
and slieep, or of other common drinks, is worihy death, and God will in the future
life, if it be not punished here, revenge it witli grievous punishment."
" God will in the next life punish !" Why, as bad as these notes
are, objectionable and scornfully repudiated as they were by the
Catholics of England, bad as they are, they do not sustain the gen-
tleman, whose assertion has gone as far beyond the truth as it is so
BEIOKE THE CITY COUNCIL. 167
very far beyond charity. I do not find the notes , from the Apoca-
lypse, ■which would have gone to show in like manner that, bad as
they were, they do not support the accusations made.
Dr. Bond. There are others as well.
Bishop Hughes. Well, I will give you the rest.
The Peesident. Perhaps it is not necessary. But if tliey are,
it is not necessary to interrupt the gentleman.
Bishop Hughes. Such then, sir, are the notes put by the Catholic
translators of the New Testament, at Rheims, in 1582 — smarting as
they were' under the lash of Elizabeth's persecution, and looking
forward with hope to the result of the invasion by Philip H. They
were repudiated indignantly by the Catholics of England and Ire-
land from the first ; and were out of print, until some Protestant
ministers of New York had them published, in order to mislead the
people and to excite odium against the Catholic name.
But here, sir, is the acknowledged Testament of all Catholics
who speak the English language ; this is known and may be read
by any one, it is the 14th edition in this country, it corresponds
with those used in England and Ireland ; and if any such notes can
be found in it, then believe Catholics to be what they have been
falsely represented to be.
But the reverend gentleman disclaims originating the slander. He
took it, we are told, from the British Critic, as if that which is
false must become true, from the moment it is put in type and
printed. But, sir, he should have known that the article in the
British Critic was refuted at the time, and has been since refuted in
the Dublin Review. And it so happens that Doctor Troy, then
Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, and who is here represented as hav-
ing approved these notes, had to sustain a law-suit with the Dublin
publisherj«who was also a Protestant — not for approving the work,
but for DENOUNCING it, which destroyed the publisher's speculation,
and involved a suit against the Archbishop for damages ! ! This is
attested by Dr. Troy's letter, now before me, and by the legal pro-
ceedings, and in a speech made by Daniel O'Connell to the Catho-
lic Board at the time (181V), we find the following :
"From the Dublin Evening Post of the 6ih of December, 1817.
CATHOLIC BOARD— THE RHEMISH BIBLE.
A remarkably full meeting of the Catholic Board took place on Thursday last,
pursuant to adjournment — Owen O'Conner, Esq., in the Chair.
After some preliminary business, Mr O'Connell rose to mate his promised mo-
tion, for the appointment of a Committee to prepare a denunciation of the intoler-
ant doctrines contained in the Rhemisli Notes.
Mr. O'Coiinell said, that on the last day of meeting he gave notice that he would
move for a committee, to draw up a disavowal of the very dangerous and unchari-
table doctrines contained in certain notes to the llhemish Testament. He now
rose to submit that motion to the consideration of the Board. The late edition of
the Rheimish Testament in this country gave rise to much observation ; that work
was denounced by Dr. Troy ; an action is now depending between him and a re-
spectable bookseller in this city ; and It would be the duty of the Board not to in-
168 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
terfere, in the reihotest degi-ee, -with the subject of that action, but, on flie other
hand, the Board could not let the present opportunity pass by of recording their
sentiments of disapprobation, and even of abhorrence of the bigoted and intoler-
ant doctrines promulgated in that work. Their feelings of what was wise, consis-
tent, and liberal, would suggest such a proceeding, even though the indecent cal-
nmnies of their enemies had not rendered it indispensible. A work called llie
Brilish Critic, had, no doubt, been read by some gentlemen who heard him. The
circulation of the last number has been very extensive, and exceeded, almost be-
yond circulation, the circulation of any former number, in consequence of an arti-
cle whicli appeared in it on the late edition of the Khemish Testament. He (Mr.
O'Connel!) said he read that article ; it is extremely unfair and uncandid ; it gives
with audacious falsehood, passages, as if from the notes of the Rheiinish Testa-
ment, which cannot be found in that work ; and, with mean cunning, it seeks to
avoid detection by quoting, without giving either text or page. Throughout, it is
written in the true spirit of the inquisition, it is violent, vindictive, and uncharita-
ble. He was sorry to understand that it was written by ministers of the Estab-
lished Church ; but he trusted, that when the charge of intemperance should be
again brought forward against the Catholics, their accusers would cast their eyes
on this coarse and illiberal attack — here they may find a specimen of real intemper- .
ance. But the very acceptable work of imputing principles to the Irish people
which they never held, and which they abhor, was not confined to Tlie British
Critic. 2/ie Cmirier, a newspaper whose circulation is immense, lent its hand, and
the provincial newspapers throughout England — those papers which are forever
silent when anything might be said favorable to Ireland, but are ever active to dis-
seminate whatever may tend to her disgrace or dishonor. They have not hesitated
to impute to the Catholics of this country the doctrines contained in those offen-
sive noteS' — and it was their duty to disclaim them. Nothing was more remote
from the true sentiments of the Irish people. These notes were of English growth ;
they were written in agitated times, when the title of Elizabeth was questioned,
on the grounds of legitimacy. Party spirit was then extremely violent : politics
mixed with religion, and, of course, disgraced it. Queen Mary, of Scotland, had
active partisans, who thought it would forward their purposes to translate the
Bible, and add to it those obnoxious notes. But very shortly after the establish-
ment of the College at Douay, this Rhemish edition was condemned by all the
Doctors of that Institution, who, at the same time, called for and received the aid
of the Scotch and Irish Colleges. The book was thus suppressed, ani an edition
of the Bible, with notes, was published at Douay, which has ever'been since
adopted by the Catholic Church ; so that they not only condemned and suppressed
the Rheimish edition, but they published an edition, with notes, to which no objec-
tion has, or could be, urged. From that period there have been but two editions
of the Rhemish Testament ; the first had very little circulation ; the late one was
published by a very ignorant printer in Cork, a man of the name of M'Namara, a
person who was not capable of distinguishing between the Rhemish and any
other edition of the Bible. lie took up the matter merely as a speculation in trade.
He meant to publish a Catholic Bible, and having put his hand upon the Rhemish
edition, he commenced to print it in numbers. He subsequently became bankrupt,
and his property in this transaction vested in Mr, Gumming, a respectable book-
seller in this city, who is either a Protestant or Presbyterian ; but he carried on
the work, like M'Namara, merely to make money of it, as a mercantile speculation ;
and yet, said Mr. O'Connell, our enemies have taken it up with avidity ; they have
asserted that the sentiments of those notes are cherished by the Catholics in this
country. He would not be surprised to read of speeches in the next Parliament
on the subject. It was a hundred to one but that some of our briefless barristers
have already commenced composing their dull calumnies, and that we shall have
speeches from them, for the edification of the Legislature, and the protection of
the Cliurch. _ There was not a moment to be lost— the Catholics should, with one
voice, disclaim those very odious doctrines. He was sure there was not a single
Catholic in jfreland that did not feel as he did, abhorrence at the principles these
notes contain. llUberality has been attributed to the Irish people, but they are
grossly wronged. He had often addressed the Catb.olic people of Ireland. He '
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 169
always found tliem applaud every sentiment of liberality, and the doctrine of per-
fect freedom of conscience ; the right of every human being to have his religious
creed, whatever that creed might be, unpolluted by the impious interference of
bigoted or oppre^s-ive laws. Those sacred rights, and that generous sentiment,
were never uttered at a Catliolic aggregate meeting, witlioiit receiving at the in-
stant tlie loud and the unanimous applause of the assembly.
'■ It might be said that tliose meetings were composed of. mei-e rabble. Well, be
it so. For one, he should concede that, for the sake of argument. But what fol-
lowed ? Why, just this: — that the Catholic rabble, witliout the advantages of
education, or of the influence of polished society, were so well acquainted with
the genuine principles of Christian charity, that they, the rabble, adopted and ap-
plauded sentiments of liberalit}', and of religious freedom, wliicli, unfortunately,
met but litile encouragement from the polished and educated of other sects."
('I lien follows the passage which we have quoted iu tlie preceding article.)
" Mr. O'Connell's motion was put and carried, the words beijig amended thus :
" ' That a Committee be appointed to draw up an address on the occasion of the
late publication of the Rhemish Testament, with a view to have the same submit-
ted to an aggregate meeting.' "
Such, sir, are the history and the authority of the notes put to
the Rhemish translation of the New Testament. The denuncia-
tion of Dr. Troy spoiled the sale of the work in Ireland, and the
publisher sent the remaining copies for sale to this country ; but
even this did not remunerate him, as his loss was estimated at
£500 sterling. It must have been from one of these exiled copies,
that the Protestant edition, published in this city, now produced,
was taken. These being the facts of the case, if I were a Protest-
ant, I should feel ashamed of a clergyman of my church, who, from
either malice or ignorance, should take up such a book, with the un-
christian view of blackening the character of any denomination of
my fellow citizens. But not only this, sir, but look at the array of
the names of Protestant ministers, in this city, certifying, contrary
to the fact, that this text and these notes are by the authority of
the Catholic Church, and then say, whether there is no prejudice
against the Catholics ! I shall now dismiss the subject.
Sir, the Methodist gentleman, in the whole of his address, in
which he made the charge I have now disposed of, and of which I
wish him joy, slyly changed the nature and bearing of my lan-
guage in the remarks I made last evening. For instance, respecting
Purgatory, of which I observed if they were not satisfied with our
Purgatory and wished to go further, they might prove the truth of
the proverb, which says they may " go farther and fare worse."
He said I " sent " them farther. But that corresponds with the rest.
I did not send them farther. I here disavow such feelings in the name
of human nature, and of that venerable religion which I profess.
But he has seen that " betting," as he was pleased to call it, is a
sin, because forsooth, " he would get my money without an equiva-
lent." Now I think he suspected the contrary. But I did not pro-
pose betting. His calumny had taken me by surprise ; but was it
not fortunate, almost providential, that I had at hand a direct refu-
tation, for if his charge had gone abroad uncontradicted, the igno-
rant or bigoted would have taken it on his authority, and quoted it
with as much jissurance as he u'd on that of the British Critic —
lYO AEOHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
and for the same unholy purpose. He took me, I say, at an unfair
moment, and then it was, I stated, that if the gentleman could
prove his charge — there were gentlemen here who had confidence
in my word, and I said I would pledge myself to forfeit $1000 to
be distributed in charities to the poor, as this council might direct,
provided he would agree to the same forfeiture, if he failed to prove
it. This is not betting.
He says that his Church has taught him the sinfulness of betting.
But this did not deserve that name. It was only an ordeal, to test
his confidence in the veracity of the slander contained in the Metho-
dist Remonstrance. I may not, indeed, have the same scruples
about what he calls gambling, that he has ; but I do remember,
what he seems to have forgotten, that there is a precept of the
Decalogue — a commandment of the living God, which says : " Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
I now pass to another portion of this gentleman's remarks. He
contends that it is impossible to furnish reading lessons from history
for the last ten centuries, without producing what must be offensive
to Catholics. The history of Catholics is so black, that the Public
Schools could not, in his view, find a solitary bright page to refresh
the eye of the Catholic children. This is set forth in the Remon-
strance of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and this the reverend
gentleman undertook to support in his speech. He said that history
must not be falsified for our accommodation. That the black and
insulting passages against us and our religion, placed in the hands
of our children at the Public Schools, were not to be charged as a
defect in the system — inasmuch as the Trustees could find worse,
but would be obliged to falsify history itself to find better. From
this defence you can judge what confidence Catholics can place in
this society, or in the schools under their charge.
I contended that there existed portions of history eminently hon-
orable to Catholics. But, says he, " history is philosophy, teaching
by example — the good and the bad must be taken together." Then
how does it happen that the bad alone is presented in the Public
Schools ? Besides, if all the good and all the bad which history
ascribes to Catholics must be presented, it would make a library
rather large for a class-book in the Public Schools. Hence the ne-
cessity of a selection ; and how is it, that in the selection the bad is
brought out, and the good passed over in silence as if it did not
exist ? Why is the burning of Huss selected ? Why the burning
of Cranmer ? Why are our children taught in the face of all sense and
decency, that Martin Luther did more for learning, than any other
man " since the days of the Apostles !" Why is " Phelim Maghee "
represented as " sealing his soul with a wafer," — in contempt to the
holiest mystery known to Catholics, the Sacred Eucharist ? Why
are intemperance and vice set forth as the necessary and natural
effects of the Catholic Religion ? All this put in the hands of Catho-
lic children, by this society, claiming to deserve the confidence of
Catholic parents !
^ BKFOEE TI-IU CITY COUNCIL. lYl
Now the Methodist gentleman says that all this is right — that the
Trustees could not possibly, within the last ten centuries, find history
which would not.be offensive to Catholics — and that to make it
otherwise, it must be falsified. Now, sir, I should like to know,
whether it can be expected that we should have any confidence in
schools, for the support of which we are taxed, in which onr re-
ligious feelings are insulted, our children perverted, and whose advo
cates tell us gravely that we ought to be satisfied that things can-
not be otherwise, unless history is to be falsified for our convenience !
To this we never shall consent ! Religious intolerance has done
much to degrade us, and its most dangerous instrument was dejjriv-
ing us of education.
The gentleman (Dr. Bond) has corrected some of my remarks of
last evening, on the Methodist Episcopal Church. The fact is, the
style of Remonstrance presented here, as emanating from that
Church, imposed on me the necessity of alluding to the history and
principles of that denomination. It is unpleasant to me, at any time,
to use language calculated to wound the feelings of any sect or class
of my felloAV citizens. But they who offer the unprovoked insult,
must not complain of the retort. I stated that the Methodists in
England had never done a solitary act to aid in the spread of civil
and religious liberty in that country; that whilst the Catholics
aided the Dissenters in obtaining the repeal to the Test and Corpo-
ration Acts, the Methodists never contributed to that measure, by
so much as one petition in its favor. But it appears I fell into a
mistake, which the gentleman corrected with great precision and
gravity. The " Methodist Society," in England, he tells us, is some-
thing quite different from the " Methodist Episcopal Church," in
the United States. The former consider themselves only as a society
in the Established Church, just as the religious orders, the Domi-
nicans, Jesuits, &c., are in the Catholic communion. Certainly it
is new to me to learn that the Methodists and the Church of
England are in such close and affectionate spiritual relationship.
For although the Methodists consider themselves a society within
the pale of the Establishment, the members of the Established
Church are quite of a different opinion, since it was only the other
day that I read of a Presbyter of that Church having been suspend-
ed by his Bishop, for having preached in a Methodist Meeting-
house ! So that the affection of the Methodists for the Church of
England, does not appear to be very cordially reciprocated.
This gentleman tells us that the Methodists, who are only a
'■• Society " in England, are an " Episcopal Church in America."
Yes, sir, Mr. "Wesley, who was himself but a Priest, actually conse-
crated a Bi$HOP for the United States ! And hence the Methodist
Episcopal Church — a new order of Episcopacy, deriving their au-
thority and character from Mr. John "Wesley, a mere Priest. But,
with or without Bishops, their whole history proves how much
they imbibed of the intolerance of the established Church of Eng-
land, to which he tells us they are so intimately allied in that coun-
Ii2 ARCHBISHOP hughes' second speech
try, bii t which at all times spurns the connection. This same John
AVesley held and wrote that no government ought to grant tolera-
tion to" Catholics ; because, forsooth, either from ignorance of Catho-
lic doctrines or bigotry against them, he was pleased to believe and
assert falsely that they held it lawful to murder heretics. When
the government of Great Britain was about to mitigate the code of
penal laws and persecution against the Catholics, in 1780, who was
more fervent and fanatical in opposition to the exercise of mercy
than John Wesley ? The great object of the Protestant Association,
headed by Lord Geoi'ge Gordon, was to oppose the least mitigation
of sevei'ity. Who was more active in the intellectual operations of
that society than Mr. John Wesley ? Under the leadership of Lord
George Gordon they raised a rebellion in that year, and when the
mob had plundered, destroyed, and burnt the houses and churches
of the Catholics, spread consternation throughout the city of Lon-
don, and caused human blood to flow in torrents, we have this same
Wesley, with sanctimonious gravity, charging it all on the Catho-
lics—the victims of its fury — and contending that it was a " Popish
plot." His services in that Association had been acknowledged by
a unanimovs vote of thanks, dated "February ITth of that very year.
This was in 1780 — when the mighty events which had occurred in
this country taught the British government the expediency of relax-
ing the penal laws against so large a portion of her subjects in
England and Ireland. The rebound of those events had been felt
throughout the world. They were the events created and accom-
plished by the great fathers of this Republic, then struggling into
existence ; and whilst Catholics and Protestants fought bravely
side by side in the ranks of independence — while a Catholic Carroll
was signing its charter, and another Carroll, a Priest, and (tell it
not in Gath) a Jesuit, was employed on an embassy to render the
population of Canada friendly, or at least not hostile to our strug-
gle ; whilst a Catholic Commodore, Barry, was doing the office of a
founder and father to our young and gallant Navy, what was John
Wesley doing ? He was creeping to the British throne to lay at
the feet of His llajesty's government the offer to raise a regiment
and put them at the disposal of the crown, expressly to put down
what he called the " American Rebellion ;" to crush the rising lib-
erties of your infant country !
Now, sir, I think I was authorized to state that the Methodists
have done as little for the spread of human liberty, the rights and
equality of mankind, as any other denomination — no matter how
old or how young. If they have not done extensive mischief, of
which the gentleman boasts, it is to be remembered that they never
possessed supreme civil power, and that in the order of time they
have been too insignificant, and are still too juvenile to have done
extensive evil. If they have done private good, as the gentleman
contends, I confess it reminds me of Stephen Girard's charity. He
was exceedingly rich ; and because he was rich, people thought he
was very wise. And inasmuch as he despised all external ehow of
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 1Y3
religion, it was inferred he was very charitable to the poor, without,
however making a display of it. If it was so, no man ever jjrac-
ticed better the comisel of the Gospel, " not to let the left liarld
know what the right hand doeth " in the matter. It was so private
that no one ever could find it out. So it is with the Methodist
Church with regard to any public benefit ever conferred on man-
kind ; we have yet to hear of it.
I will now satisfy the gentleman on another subject which seems
to trouble him, and on which he " should like to know." And as
other gentlemen have alluded to it, I hope the same explanation
will suffice in reply to them all.
Before the British government released the Catholics from the
penalties under which they labored, among which not the least was
the exclusion of the schoolmaster, they called upon them to disavow
principles which they knew Catholics did not entertain. But in
order to reconcile the prejudices of the English people, they had an
investigation of those imputed principles before the houses of Par-
liament; they called upon some distinguished Catholic citizens and
questioned them on several points such as those the gentleman has
so frequently referred to, among which was the spiritual authority
of the Pope. From the testimony which they took I now quote.
It is part of the testimony of Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare ; but
other bishops and public men were a;ll examined on the same
subject.
Question. " According to the principles which govern the Ro-
man Catholic Church in Ireland, has the Pope any authority to
issue commands, ordinances, or injunctions, general or special, with-
out the consent of the King?"
Answer. " He has."
" Question. " If he should issue such orders, are the subjects of
His Majesty, particularly the clergy, bound to obey them ?"
Answer. " The orders that he has a right to issue must I'egard
things that are of a spiritual nature ; and when his commands re-
gard such things, the clergy are bound to obey them ; but were he
to issue commands regarding things not spiritual, the clergy are not
in anywise bound to obey them."
Consequently, if His Holiness, as the gentleman, Mr. Ketchum,
said, should forbid the reading of the Declaration of Independence,
it would not be of any authority.
Mr. Ketchum. Does the book say so ?
Bishop Hughes. I am authority myself in matters of my reli-
gion. Surely, sir, I am not here to betray it ; and I am astonished
that the gentleman is not better acquainted with history on the
matter. He amused us a little while ago with the idea of what ter-
rible consequences might ensue if the Pope, a "foreign potentate,"
should forbid us to read the Declaration of Independence ; or forbid
the reading of the Bible in our Common Schools. He even apolo-
gized for his alarm with singular simplicity: "he meant no reflec-
tion. This matter had come out in evidence here." It was then,
174 AECHBisnop hughes' second speech
sir, I wondered at his not ha-ving read history, or having read it to
so little advantage.
Did he not know that, long before the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, Venice rose out of the sea, a Catholic State, with all her re-
publican glory round about her ? And when the Pope, in his capa-
city of "fore-ign potentate," attempted to invade her temporal
rights, her Catholic sons did what they ought to have done, they
unsheathed their swords and routed his troops. Did they thereby
forfeit their allegiance to him as spiritual Head of the Church on
earth ? N'ot an'iota, of it. To a man who reads history, and under.
stands it, this fact alone points out the difference, in the creed of
Catholics, between the Pope and the potentate. The Venetians
knew that the Pope, in his spiritual capacity, belongs to a kingdom
which is not of this world. And the allegiance of Catholics to him,
out of his own small dominions, is due to him only in his spiritual
capacity. Whatever temporal right was acquired over independent
states by the Popes in former ages, was owing to no principle of
Catholic doctrine, but purely to the disorders of the times and the
pusillanimity of weak rulers, who, in order to secure the Pope's pro-
tection, made themselves his vassals. The Popes, in such circum-
stances, would have been more or less than men, had they refused
to embrace these opportunities of aggrandizement so placed within
their reach, and often pressed upon them. Now every Catholic is
familiar with this view of the subject, and yet, except a few of larger
minds and better education, it has hardly penetrated the density of
Protestant prejudice. Hence you hear them giving the most ab-
surd construction to the duties of Catholics between the supposed
conflicting claims of their country and the imputed principles of
theii- religion. Permit me here to call your attention to the true
and beautiful exposition of the case as set forth in the language of a
gentleman who, though a Catholic, is acknowledged to be a man of
as high honor, as lofty and patriotic principles, and as unblemished
a character, as any man the nation can boast of: I mean Judge
Gaston, of North Carolina. The State has no son of whom she is,
or ought to be, prouder. And yet, up till within a few years, the
laws of that State disqualified a Catholic from holding any, even the
office of a constable. In a speech made by Judge Gaston, in the
Convention for revising the State Constitution, in reference to this
matter, he says :
" But it has been objected, that the Catholic religion is iinfaTorable to freedom ;
nay, even incompatible with republican institutions. Ingenious speculations on
Buch matters are worth little, and prove still less. Let me ask who obtained the
great charter of English freedom but the Catholic prelates and barons at Eunny-
mede ? The oldesi,, the j/ures\. Jemocracy on earth is the little Catholic republic
of San Marino, not a day's journey from Rome. It has existed now for fourteen
hundred years, and is so jealous of arbitrary power, that the executive authority
is divided between two Governors, who are elected every three months. Was
William Tell, the founder of Swiss liberty, a royalist? Are the Catholics of the
Swiss cantons in love with tyranny? Are the Irish Catholics friends to passive
obedience and non-resistance ? Was Lafayette, Pulaski, or Kosciusko, a foe to
civil freedom ? Was Charles Carroll, of CarroUton, unwilling to jeopard fortune in
BEFOEE THE CITT COUNCIL. I'Jo
the cause of liberty ? Let me giye yon, however, the testimony of Geovge Wash-
ington. On his accession to the Presidency, he was addressed by tlie American
Catholics, who, adverting to the restrictions on their worship then existing in some
of the States, expressed themselves thus: 'The prospect of national prosperity is
peculiarly pleasing to us on another account ; because, while our country preserves
her freedom and independence, we shall have well founded title to claim from her
justice the equal rights of citizenship as the price of our blood spilt under your
eye, and of our common exertions for her defence, under your auspicious conduct.'
This great man, who was utterly incapable of flattery and deceit, utters, in an.swer,
the following sentiments, which I give in his own words : ' As mankind beeome
more liberal, they AviU be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves
as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of
civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations in
examples of justice and liberality; and I presume that your fellow-citizens will
never forget the patriotic part which you took in the accomplishment of their rev-
olution, and the establishment of their government, or the important assistance
which they received from a nation in which the Roman Catholic faith is professed.'
By the by, sir, I would pause for a moment to call the attention of this committee
to some of the mimes subscribed to this address. Among them are those of John
Carroll, the first Roman Catholic bishop of the United States ; Charles Carroll, of
CarroUton, and '1 homas Fitzsimmons. For the characters of these distinguished
men, if they needed vouchers, I would confidently call on the venerable President
of this Convention. Bishop tJarroll was one of the best men and most humble and
devout of Chrisiians. 1 shall never forget a tribute to his memory paid by the good
and venerable Protestant Bishop White, when contrasting the piety with which
the Christian Carroll met death, with the cold trifling that characterized tlie last
moments of the skeptical l)a\ id Hume. I know not whether the tribute was more
honorable to the piety of the dead, or to the charity of the living prelate. Charles
Carroll, of CarroUton, the last survivor of the signers of American Indepen-
dence— at whose death both houses of the Legislature of North Carolina unan-
imously testified their sorrow, as at a national bereavement I Thomas Fitzsim-
mons, one of the illusirions Convention that framed the Constitution of the United
States, and for several years the Representative in Congress from the city of Phila-
delphia. Were these, and such as these, foes to freedom and unfit for republican-
ism ? Would it be dangerous to permit such men to be sheriffs and constables in
the land ? Read the funeral eulogium of Charles Carroll, delivered at Rome by
Bishop England — one of the greatest ornaments of the American Catholic Church
— a foreigner, indeed, by birth, but an American by adoption, and who becoming
an American, solemnly abjured all allegiance to every foreign king, prince, and
potentate whatever — that eulogium which was so much carped at by English roy-
alists and English tories — and I think you will find it democratic enough to suit
the taste and find an echo in the heart of the sternest republican amongst us.
Catholics are of all countries, of all governments, of all political creeds. Li all they
are taught that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and that it is their duty
to render unto Csesar the things that are Cffisar's, and unto God the things that are
God's."
I shall now proceed with the testimony of the Irish Bishops in
order, which was interrupted by the gentleman's question.
Here, sir, is the testimony of another bishop — Dr. Murray, tlM
present Archbishop of Dublin — before a Committee of the British
Parliament.
" To what extent and in what manner does a Catholic profess to obey the Pope 1
— Solely in spiritual matters, or in such mixed matters as come under his govern-
ment: such as marriage, for instance, which we hold to be a sacrament as well as
a civil contract. As it is a sacrament, it is a spiritual thing, and comes under the
jurisdiction of the Pope; of course he has authority over that spiritual part of it;
but this authority docs not atfect the civil rights of the individuals contracting.
176 AECHBISHOP HUGHES SECOND SPEECH
"Does this obedience detract from what 13 due by a Catholic to the State under
which he lives ?— Not in the least ; (he powers are wholly distinct.
" Does it justify an objection that, is made to Catholics, that their allegiance 13
divided ?— Their allegiance in civil matters is completely undivided.
" Is the duty which the Catholic owes to the Tope, and the duty which he owes
to the King, really and substantially distinct?— Wholly distinct !
" How far is the claim, that some Popes have set up to Temporal Authority,
opposed to Scripture and Tradition ?— As far as it may have been exercised as
coming from a right granted to him by God, it appears to me to be contrary to
Scripture and tradition ; but as far as it may have been exercised in consequence
of a right conferred on him by the different Christian powers, who looked up to
him at one time as the great parent of Christendom, who appointed him as the
arbitrator of their concerns, many of whom submitted their kingdoms to him, and
laid them at his feet, consenting to receive them back from him as fiefs, the case
is different. The power that he exercised under that authority of course passed
away when those temporal princes who granted it chose to withdraw it. His
spiritual power does not allow him to dethrone kings, or to absolve their subjects
from the allegiance due to them ; and any attempt of that kind I would consider
contrary to Scripture and tradition.
" Does the Pope now dispose of temporal affairs within .the kingdoms of any of
the princes of the Continent ? — Not that I am aware of; I am sure he does not.
" Do the Catholic clergy admit that all the bulls of the Pope are entitled to obe-
dience?— They are entitled to a certain degree of reverence. If not contrary
to our usages, or contrary to the law of God, of course they are entitled to
obedience, as coming from a superior. We owe obedience to a parent, we
owe obedience to the king, we owe it to the law; but if a parent, the king, or the
law, were to order us to do anything that is wrong, we would deem it a duty to
say, as the Apostles did on another occasion, ' We ought to obey God rather than
men.'
" Are there circumstances under which the Catholic clergy would not obey a bull
of the Pope ? — Most certainly.
" What is the true meaning of the following words, in the creed of Pius IV. : ' I
promise and swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter?' —
Canonical obedience, in the manner I have just described, within the sphere of his
own authority.
" What do the principles of the Catholic religion teach, in respect to the perform-
ance of civil duties ? — They teach that the performance of civil duties is a consci-
entious obligation which the law of God imposes on us.
" Is the divine law then quite clear, as to the allegiance due by subjects to their
prince ? — Quite clear.
" In what books are to be found the most authentic exposition of the Faith of the
Catholic Church ? — In that very creed that has been mentioned, the creed of Pius
IV. ; in the Catechism which was published by the direction of the Council of
Trent, called ' The Roman Catechism,' or 'The Catechism of ihe Council of Trent;'
' An Exposition of the Catholic Faith, by the Bishop of Meaux, Bossuet ;' ' Verron's
Rule of Faith ;' ' Holden's Analysis of Faith' and several others."
Such is the character and limitation of the Pope's authority, at-
tested under oath, by bishops and other Catholic dignitaries before
the British Parliament. The Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland
had been bowed down to the earth, by penal laws and persecution,
during three hundred years — with nothing between them and the
enjoyment of all their rights, but the solemnity of an oath. If their
conscience had permitted them to swear what they did not believe,
they might have entered on their political rights at any time, and
yet as inartyrs to the sacredness of conscience they resisted.
I have now, sir, supplied the reverend gentleman, who presented
BBFOEE THE CriT COUNCIL. 177
the remonstrance from the Methodist Episcopal CImrch, with all the
information which the occasion permits on the subject of the Pope's
anthority. But there is a good deal more to which, if time allowed,
I might address myself. He became very logical, and insisted on
the fact, that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are always the
same, immutable. He says that we boast of this ; and we do so,
most assuredly. From the hour when they were revealed and taught
by ^divine authority until the present, from the rising to the setting
of the sun, the Faith of the Catholic believer, and the doctrines of
the Catholic Church, are everlastingly and universally the same.
But then he concludes, that, as Catholics in some instances in former
times persecuted, so, their religion being always -the same, they are
still bound to persecute, or else disavow the doctrine, as Protestants
do. Now, sir, we do disavow and despise the doctrine of persecu-
tion in all its essence and forms. But does it follow that by this we
disavow any doctrine of the Catholic Church ? By no means. And
this proves that persecution never was any portion of the Catholic
faith ; for if it had been, the denial of it would cut us off from her
communion. The Church we believe, by the promise and superin-
tendence of Christ, her invisible head and founder, to be infallible.
She received the deposit of the doctrines revealed by our Redeemer
and his Apostles ; her office is to witness, teach, and preserve them.
These alone constitute the religious creed and doctrines of the Cath-
olic Church and her members. We believe in a Trinity, the Incar-
nation of Christ, the Redemption by his death, the Divine Institution
of the Church. These and whatever the Church holds, as of Divine
Revelation, are the doctrines of out Catholic unity. And the indi-
vidual who is now addressing you, and the Catholic martyr who is
at this moment perhaps bleeding for his faith in China — for the
Church has her martyrs still — hold and believe identically the same
doctrines. But as there is unity in faith, so there is, in the Church,
freedom of opinion on matters which are not determined by any
specific revelation. Hence we are republicans, or monarchists, ac-
cording to individual preference, or the prevailing genius of the
country we belong to. Hence, when the Catholic divines at Rheims
were appending these notes to their edition of the New Testament,
the Catholic bishops of Poland, with her twenty-two millions, were
opening the doors of the Constitution to the fugitive Protestants of
Germany, fleeing from the intolerance and persecution of their fellovs'
Protestants. The one act is as much a Catholic doctrine as the other,
because in both cases the agents acted, not by the aathority of the
Church, but in the exercise of that individual judgment for which
their account stands to God.
But I must be brief. I cannot follow so many learned speakers
through so much matter that is foreign to the subject ; for I agree
with the medical gentleman who said that neither the Catholic nor
the Protestant religion was on trial here ; it is not religious creeds
that are to be tested by this Council. I have, however, given this
explanation, and I trust it will be received, though it may have been
12
178 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
tedious, as having its apology in the remarks which called it forth.
I only wish that the gentleman who made the observation had
made it one hour and a half sooner ; it would have saved all I have
said on the subject.
But this speaker also [Doctor Reese], lectured me for attending
certain meetings, as if it were a descent from my dignity to find my-
self in an assembly of freemen. I did not consider it as a descent.
But really when. I came here in the simple character of a citizen, 1 did
not think I should be vested with my official robes for the purpose
of being attacked. Individuals as respectable as he attended those
meetings, and I consider it no disgrace to have been there or here ;
for even if this petition came not from Catholics, but from Metho-
dists, or any other Protestant denomination, whose consciences were
violated by this system, I should be found in their midst supporting
their claim. Let me add, too, that I would rather be so found, than,
for all the exchequer of the Public School Society, exchange places
with gentlemen, and have conscience and right for my opponents.
He also contended that this want of confidence in Catholics was the
result of my appeals, forgetting that the state of things which is now
brought under public notice has existed for years, by efforts to pro-
vide a safe education for our children, long before those meetings
were called, and before I attended them. And besides, I conceive
it is my bounden duty, if I saw principles inculcated which will sap
the young minds of our children — and I have no doubt this Honora-
ble Board will say it is my duty — to warn them and to bring them
within the pale of that authority which they acknowledge. I won-
der if Presbyterian gentlemen would see CathoUc books circulated
amongst their children and not warn their people against them ? I
wonder, if these books contained reading lessons about Calvin and
the unhappy burning of Servetus, whether they would not warn their
people. I say, if they believe in their religion, they would be in the
discharge of their duty. And while on this subject, it occurs to me
at this moment, that in the wide range of observation which has
been taken, reference has been made to national education in Ire-
land. And we are told that after books had been agreed upon, the
bishops sent the question to Rome, to be decided by the Pope.
What question? Can they tell? for 1 am sure 1 cannot. To this
day, I have never understood the exact nature of the reference to
the Pope, but, sir, this is no extraordinary thing. Under the jealous
eye of the British government, even in the darkest hour of her cru-
elty to Catholics, their intercourse with Rome was not interrupted.
But while that collection and compilation of Scripture lessons was
agreed on in the more Cathohc parts of the country where the pop-
ulation is divided between Protestants and Catholic, what is the
fact ? Why, in another part, the North of Ireland, where the Pres-
byterians are more numerous, they had conscientious objections to
this selection of Scripture, they asserted their objections, and the
British government recognized them ; and thus while these lessons
by agreement were in general use, an exception was made in favor
BEFOEE THE CITY COUNCIL. 179
of the Presbyterians, who had objections to the use of anything but
the naked word of God ; and I say, honor to those Presbyterians.
The Catholics sent in no remonstrance. But if the rule applied to
their case, by what authority will your honorable body determine
that it shall not apply to ours ? Oh ! I perceive. The gentleman,
whose remarks I am* reviewing, reasoned on until he arrived at the
conclusion that there were no conscientious grounds for our objec-
jection at all. True, we said we had ; but he could not see what
conscience had to do with a matter so plain. He said, here the
community had built up a beautiful system ; it was doing good ; he
asked shall we put it aside in deference to pretended scruples ?
Now, tell me when the despotism of intolerance ever said anything
else than this ? Why, the established church of England said, " we
are doing good," " our doors are open to all," " the minister is at the
desk, and the bread of life is distributed for the public good."
What then ? What business have these unhappy parents to find
fault for conscience sake and squeamishness ? Now, sii-, objections
can exist to the slightest shade of violation to our conscience, and
therefore, I did not expect to hear this argument at this time of day.
But the gentleman speaks of my addressing the public meetings to
which he has alluded, as though my speaking there had been the
cause instead of the consequence of the scruples of our people.
Then it was I joined them to seek a remedy for our just complaint,
but if in your wisdom this body shall think proper to deny, it we
must bear it.
He contended again that it would be turning the public money to
private uses. That seems to me to have been fully answered. He also
contended that it would be the giving of the money of the State to
support religion. That I have disputed ; for if so I shall have no
objection to join those gentlemen in their remonstrance. But at the
same time it does appear strange to me that the gentleman, who
pretends to have read the Scriptures with so much attention, should
not have learned that principle — the most general, sir, and the most
infallible of Christian principles for the guidance of our conduct^;^
■ "Do UNTO OTHEES AS TE WOULD THAT OTHERS SHOULD DO UNTO
YOU." That is the principle ; and is it not strange that such oppo-
sition should be made to us when it is known that money raised by
public tax goes to the support of literature under the supervision of
the Methodist Episcopal Chuech ? And why do not Catholics
object to that ? Because the tax does not belong to any particular
sect ; it is thrown into a common fund and applied to such uses as the
legislature in its wisdom thinks proper. We, sir, however, ask for
our own and nothing else. But if yoii say that we shall be taxed
for a system which is so organized that we cannot participate in it
without detriment to the religious rights of our children, then I say
that injustice is done even to our civil rights ; for taxation is the
basis of even civil, rights. And I was not a little struck in the course
of the argument, that some gentlemen should refer with so much
emphasis as to a circumstance novel and unparalleled even in social
180 ARCHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPEECH
life — that a certain class of gentlemen should petition for what ?
The privilege of being taxed ! They deemed it a, privilege, and that
was wonderful ! and merit was ascribed to them for it. Yes, sir,
but did it go to the extent only of their own pockets ? Or did it
not reach the pockets equally of those who did not petition? If to
themselves only, it was all fair, and proper, dfsinterested and patri-
otic : but gre^t emphasis was laid on this class being most " intelli-
gent" and " wealthy"' and " respectable," nobility almost, as though
a question of this kind was intended for a particular class. But let
me tell you the honest man who occupies only a bed in a garret, is
also a tax payer. Why give him a vote ? Because he pays tax for
the space he occupies. If he occupies a room and pays the tax, his
rent is less — if the landlord pays, his rent is so much more. So, if
he occupies a garret, or if he boards, it goes down to that, for the
person who keeps the boarding-house pays the rent ; if that tax is
paid by the boarding-house keeper the rent is so much less than if
the tax was paid by the landlord. If the boarding-house keeper
pays the tax, he charges more for board. So that the boarder is a
tax payer, and it is so understood in our broad and excellent system
of representation. The exclusive merit of this tax, then, is not to be
given to any particular class, no matter how wealthy ; and I was
surprised that so much emphasis should be laid on it. I did not
suppose that the interests of the poor were to be sacrificed to the
respectability of the rich. The poor pay too ; and it is a beautiful
and admirable thing to see what a dignity this confers on human
nature — what an interest this excites in the poor. I recollect pass-
ing along a street some time since, and I observed a little house,
almost a shed or hovel, some fourteen or sixteen feet square, which
was too small to be divided into two compartments. It had but
one window, and this had originally had four panes of glass, but one
having been broken it was darkened. There had been some politi-
cal party triumph ; the boys in the streets had their drums out and
there appeared to be a popular rejoicing, and there I saw three lights
burning in the window of this poor habitation. I was amused to
see that a man living in so poor a hovel, and unable to buy a fourth
pane of glass, should find means to light the other three. But on
further reflection I said to myself, "there is philosophy there."
What other nation can exhibit such a spectacle ? This poor man,
who must toil till the day he goes to his grave, participates in a
political triumph. His bread has to be earned by daily toil never-
theless; though the triumph perhaps will never benefit him, he
exhibits a glorious spectacle to the world. He is a man— he feels it
is recognized. It is a nation's homage offered to human nature.
He is a man and a citizen ; and on reflection I was delighted at a
spectacle so glorious as this.
But returning to the subject, they say all religion is left to volun-
tary contribution. Now is this true in the sense in which it is here
applied ? Are not chaplains appointed to public institutions which
are supported by the public money ? And have you not given it to
BEFORE THE OITY COU^NCIL. 181
the Protestant Oi'phan Asylum, and the Half-orphan Asylum? Have
you not given it to the Catholic Benevolent Society ? And do you sup-
pose the Wesleyan Catechism is taught there ? Do you suppose the
Catholic Catechism is taught in the Protestant Asylums? One gentle-
man argued that you had not the power to do this. But if you have
done it, does not that prove that you had the power ? If you had
power to do that you have power equally to do this. I shall go
further. I find in the Report of the Regents of the University, that
the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary — Theological Seminary, as I under-
stand— has last year received $1,390.56 of the public money. This
is not exclusively literary^ as I understand it —
Dr. Bangs. Altogether literary.
Bishop Hughes. I was under the impression that it was Theolo-
gical, and that religion was admitted. But .those in this city furnish
evidence that a religious profession does not disqualify.
I believe now, sir, I have gone through the substance at least, if
not through every particular, of what has been said by the gentle-
men who interpose their remonstrances and their arguments in
opposition to our rightful claim. I will now read one authority, and
I am the more willing because it is from the Public School Society
themselves. It is from the memorial which they presented to the
Legislature in the Session of 1823, in which they state, page 7, "It
will not be denied " — recollect I do not quote this to show that our
petition ought to be granted ; but that, whatever opinion these gen-
tlemen may now have of the unconstitutionality of granting this
claim, they saw nothing unconstitutional in the practice then, and I
know of nothing so far as the constitution is concerned, neither of
the State, nor of the United States — I know of no enactment which
should change their opinion :
" It will not be denied, in this enlightened age, that the education of the poor
is enjoined by our holy religion, and is therefore one of the duties of a Christian
Church. Nor is there any impropriety in committing the School Fund to the
hands of a religious society, so long as they are confined, in the appropriation of
it, to an object not necessarily connected or intermingled with the other concerns
of the church, as for instance to the payment of teachers, because the State is sure
in this case, that the benefits of the fund, in the way it designed to confer them,
will be reaped by the poor. But the objection to the section sought to be repealed
is, that the surplus moneys after the payment of teachers, is vested in the hands
of the trustees of a religious society, and mingled with its other funds, to be ap-
propriated to the erection of buildings under the control of the trustees, which
. buildings may, and in aU probability will, be used for other purposes than school
houses."
That is the statement of the Public School Society itself; and
throughout this document — while the gentlemen here have been
wielding against our petition the influence of respectable and
wealthy classes — I find that before the acquisition of their monopoly^
they advocated the claims of the poor who cannot buy education —
sometimes scarcely bread. This is the class to whose welfare the
eye of the enhghtened, the patriotic, and the benevolent should be
directed — this is the class that essentially requires education. Thus
182 AECHBISHOP hughes' SECOND SPBBCH
they say, " The School Fund is designed for a civil purpose, for such
is the education of the poor."
Again, they say that the New York Free School (that was their
own Society) has "one single object, the education of the poor."
Again, the Board of Trustees is annually chosen, etc., "for the edu-
cation of the poor." And yet now I could point out thousands of
our poor who are destitute of education, and who have no means to
provide it. We do what we can, but we are too limited in means
to raise, of ourselves, a sufficient fund ; we have labored under great
disadvantages ; we have taught the catechism in our schools, because,
while we supported them we had the right to do so ; but if you put
them on the footing of the common schools we shall be satisfied, and
the State will secure the education of our children ; you will secure ■
them an education on the basis of morality, for they had better be
brought vtp under the morality of our religion, though gentlemen
object, than none at all. They say the objection to the present
schools is that there they are made Protestants. No, sir, it is be-
cause they are made Nothingarians, for we cannot teU what they
are. I have now concluded ; and if I have been obliged to trespass
long upon your patience, recollect, as some extenuation, that I had a
great deal to reply to in the arguments of gentlemen which were
urged to overthrow the principles of our petition, but had no bear-
ing on the petition at all. We do not ask for the elevation of the
Catholics over others, but for the protection to which all are en-
titled. The question is exceedingly plain and simple. If it has or
can be shown that we are claiming this money for sectarian purposes,
then I should advise you to withhold it. But if in honesty, and
truth, and sincerity, it is a right belonging to us as citizens, to re-
ceive our pro rata, then we appeal to you with confidence.
From the sentiments expressed here on ■ behalf of the Publio
School Society, you can judge of the chance that Catholic children
have in those schools, to have their religious rights respected. It
will be, as perhaps it has been, considered a great and good work
to detach them from a religion which is supposed "to teach the
lawfulness of murdering heretics." Infidelity itself will be con-
sidered preferable to Catholicism in their regard, for one reverend
gentleman has told yon that if there was no alternative, he would
embrace the doctrines of Voltaire rather than the religion of a
Cheverus or a Fenelon. If the Catholics have been obliged to
keep their children from those schools in time past, you may imagine
what eifects these sentiments, this animus of the system is likely to
have on their minds for the time to come. But if it is our religious
right to have a conscience at all, do not take pains to pervert it, for
we shall not be better citizens afterwards. Do not teach us to slight
the admonitions of our conscience. Keverse our case and make it
your own, and then you will be able to judge. Make it your own
case, and suppose your children were in the case of those poor
children for whom I plead ; then suppose what your feelings would
be if the blessings of education were provided bountifully by the
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 183
State, and you were unaWe to participate in those blessings, unless
you were willing to submit that your conscience should be trenched
upon.
Here the Right Rev. Prelate sat down after having spoken for
nearly three hours and a half.
SPEECHES OF THE BT. REV. DR. HUG-HES,
IN CARROLL HALL.
BEING A KEVIEW AND REFUTATION OF THE REMONSTRANCE OF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY, AND OF THE ARGUMENT OF
HIRAM KETCHUM, ESQ., THEIR COUNSEL, ON THE COMMON
SCHOOL QUESTION.
Wednesday Eveningj, June 16, 1841.
Public notice having been given in the daily papers of the city, that Bishop
Hughes would commence a Eeview and Refutation of the argument which
was made by Hiram Ketohura, Esq., before a Committee of the Legislature,
at Albany, in opposition to the Bill and Report of the Secretary of State, on
the subject of Common School education in the city of New York, a very
large and respectable assemblage convened in Carroll Hall, on that even-
ing, to hear the address of the Bishop. Among the gentlemen present,
we noticed the Hon. Luther Bradish, Lieutenant-Governor, and several of
the Senators of the State, who were then in attendance in the city of New
York, as members of the Court for the Correction of Errors. At the hour
Specified in the notice, the meeting was organized, by the appointment of
Thomas O'Connor, Esq., Chairman, and Bernard O'Connor, Esq., Secretary.
Et. Rev. Bishop Hughes then rose and spoke as follows :
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — The subject of education is one which at
this time agitates, more or less, every civilized nation. If we look across
the ocean, we find it the subject of discussion in France, in Prussia, in Hol-
land, in Belgium, in Ireland, and even in Austria. It is not surprising then
that this subject which has but lately attracted the attention of governments
and nations, should become one of deep and absorbing interest. But of all
these nations there is, perhaps, not one which has placed education on that
basis, on which it is destined successfully, in the end, to repose.
In countries in which the inhabitants profess the same religion, whatever
that religion may be, the subject is deprived of many of its diiBculties. But
in nations in which there is a variety of religious creeds, it has hitherto been
found one of the most perplexing of all questions, to devise a system of edu-
cation which should meet the approbation of all. This subject has engaged
the. attention of our own government. In every State of the Union it has
ah-eady been acted upon more or less fully, and in all these instances, whether
we regard Europe or regard this country, we find that therb is not a solitary
instance in which religion, or religious instruction in a course of education,
has been j)roscribed, with the exception of the city of New York. And.
184 AECHBISHOP HUGHES
this proscription of religion in this city is not an act of public authority ;
there is no statute authorizing such an aotn-it has been the result rather of
an erroneous construction put upon a statute, and which has been acquiesced
in, rather than approved, for the last sixteen years. In the operation of that
system, Catholics felt themselves virtually excluded from the benefats of
education. Very shortly after that construction of the law was adopted,
they felt themselves obliged to proceed in the best way that their poverty
wonld allow for the education of their children; and whilst they have been
taxed with the other citizens, up. to the present hour they have derived no
benefit ti-om the system supported by that taxation, but on the contrary,
after having contributed what the law required, have been obliged to throw
themselves back on their own resources, and provide, as well as they might,
for the means of educating their children.
"We have, from time to time, complained of this state of things. It has
frequently been brought before the notice of the public. A society— pro-
fessedly the friend of education— having exercised supreme control oyer the
whole question, we had no resource but to apply to that tribunal, which the
law had authorized to use its discretion in distributing the money set apart
for the purposes of education. We always insisted, in good faith, that the
object. — the benevolent object of this government was, the education of the
rising generation, and we never conceived that the question of religion, or
no religion, had entered into the minds of those philanthropic public men
who first established this system for the diffusion of knowledge. We applied,
as I have remarked, at different times, to the tribunal to which allusion has
been already made, and did so even till a very recent period, because, before
we could apply to the Legislature of the State, it was requisite to comply
with the forms prescribed, and that we should be first rejected by the Com-
mon Council of this city, to whom the State Legislature had delegated the
discretionary power to be exercised in the premises. That course was re-
garded necessary, and we adopted it. The result was as we anticipated —
denial of our request — and then it was that we applied to the Legislature of
the State — submitted to them the grievances under which we labored, in the
full confidence that there we should find a remedy.
Both before the Common Council and the Senate of this State the means
which have been taken to defeat the proper consideration of our claims
have been such as we could not have anticipated in a country where the
rights of conscience are recognized as supreme. The test has been put, not
as to whether we were proper subjects for education, but whether we were
Catholics ! And in the course of the examination on which I am about to
enter, I shall have occasion to show that, from the beginning to the end,
the one object of the members of the Public School Society has been to con-
vince the public that we were Catholics, and they, it would appear, calcu-
late, as the consequence, that if we were Catholics, then we had no right to
obtain redress, or hope for justice.
In the course of my remarks, I shall be obliged to refer to distinctions in
religion, the introduction of which into the discussion of this question is
ever to be much regretted ; I shall have to speak of Catholics and of Prot-
estants, and when I do so, let it be understood that I do not volunteer in
that ; but the course pursued by that Public School Society has imposed
upon me the necessity to refer to these religious distinctions, and in doing
so, I trust I shall be found to speak of those who differ from me in matters
of religion with becoming respect. I am not a man of narrow feelings — I
am attached sincerely and conscientiously to the faith which I profess, but
I judge no man for professing another. In the whole of my intercourse
with Protestants, my conduct has been such that they will be ready to
acknowledge, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, that I am the last man to be
SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 185
nccuserl of bigotry. But I feel that I should be unwoi-thy of that estima-
tion—that the denomination to which I belong would be unworthy of sus-
taining that position which they are ambitious to occupy in the opinion of
their fellow-citizens of other creeds, if they were to submit to tha insult
added. to the injury inflicted on them by these men. I, for my own part,
feel indignant at the recent attempt made to cast odium upon us and our
cause, and it is because that turns entirely on the question of religion, that
I shall be obliged to speak of Catholics and of Protestants, and to refer to
those distinctions which should never have been introduced.
Before taking up the Report cf the Secretary of State, I shall refer briefly
to the conclusion of the discussion before the Common Council. There we
had, as you will recollect, legal gentlemen, and reverend gentlemen, advo-
cates of the Public School Society, who had studied the question in all its
bearings — volunteers and associates, and colleagues, on the same side, and
throughout that debate the ground taken by them was, that if our petition
wei'o_ granted, favors would be conferred on us as a .religious denomination,
tending to that, against which all the friends of liberty should guard — a
union of Church and State. So long as that idea was honestly entertained
by these gentlemen, I could respect their zeal in opposing us. But that
idea has disappeared, and yet their opposition has become more inveterate
than ever.
The very last sentence of the speech of Mr. Ketchum before the Common
Council Of the city of New York, was a declaration that this Society, so far
from desiring a collision of this kind with us, were men of peace, to whom
even the moral friction of the debate was quite a punishment ; that for
them it would be a relief, if our system of education were assimilated in its
external aspect to that of the State. I will read his own words :
" Now, perhaps the gentleman may ask, if the system is to be clianged, that we
should resort to the same course as is pursued iu the country, where the people elect
their own Commissioners and Trustees. But if we do, the schools must be governed
on the same principles as these, and the -only difference will he in the managers. And
if it is to come to that, I am sure these Trustees will he very willing, for it is to them a
source of great vexation to he compelled to carry on this controversy for such a
period. ■ '
^ " They are very unwilling to come here to meet their fellow-citizens in a somewhat
hostile manner. They have nothing to gain, for the Society is no benefit to them, and
they give days and weeks of their time, without recompense, to the discharge of the
duties of their trust."
I shall not now praise that Society. I have more than once given my
full assent to eulogiums on their zeal and assiduity ; but Mr. Ketchum
praises them and they praise themselves, and at this period of the contro-
versy, they are entitled to no praise from the thousands and thousands of
the poor neglected cliildren of New York, whom their narrow and bigoted
views have excluded from the benefits and blessings 6f education.
I shall now, before proceeding farther, take up the Report of the Secre-
tary of State, and commence with that portion of it in which he gives a
brief sketch of the origin of this Society:
"The Public School Society was originally incorporated in 180.3, by chapter 108 of
the laws of that session, which is entitled 'An act to incorporate the Society instituted
in the city of New York, for the establishment of a free school for the education of poor
children who do not belong to or are not provided for by any religious Society.' In
1808 its name was changed to 'The Free School Society of New York;' and its powers
were extended ' to all children whj are the proper subjects of a gratuitous education.'
By chapter 25 of the Laws of 1826, its name was changed to ' The Public School Society
of New York;' and the Tru.stees were authorized to provide for the educatiou of ail
children in New York not otherwise provided for, ' whetlier such children be or be not
the proper subjects of gratnitou.? education ;' and to require from those attending the
schools a moderate compensation; but no child to be refused admission on account of
inability to pay. "
186 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
"Thus, by the joint operation of the acts amending the o! arter of the Societ.^ of thi!
statutes in relation to the school moneys, and of the ordinal ce of the Common Council,
designating the schools of the Society as the principal recipients of those moneys^ the
control of the public education of the city of New York, and the disburs:ment of nine-
tenths of the public moneys raised and apportioned for schools, were vested in this
corporation. It is a perpetual corporation, and there is no power reserved by the Legis-
lature to repeal or modify its charter. It consists of members who have contributed to
the funds of the Society ; and, according to the proyisions of the last act, the payment
of ten dollars constitutes the contributor a member for life. The members annually
choose fifty Trustees, who may add to their number fifty more."
He goes on to describe its differeat acts by which its name and other
attributes were changed, until from being a Society to take charge of the
children tha£ were not provided for by any religious Society, they came to
have the control of the whole system of education in New York. The Re-
port informs us that the members of the Public School Society are so by
virtue of a subscription of ten dollars; that they elect fifty Trustees; that
these fifty Trustees have a right to appoint fifty others, and then the nuni-
ber is completed; that the City Council are members exofficio, and this
will,. perhaps, go a great way in explaining the unwillingness of the Com-
mon Council to grant out petition.
The Society was so constituted, that when we went before the Common
Council, we virtually went before a committee of the Society.
In this state of things the Governor of this State, with a patriotism and
benevolence that entitle his name to the respect of every man that has
regard for humane feeling and sound and liberal policy, declared for a
system that would afford a good common education for every child. And
though I have never before spoken in public the name of that distinguished
oflicer of the State, I do now from my heart award to him my warmest
thanks, and those of the community to which I belong, for the stand he
has taken on this subject. An attempt has been made to victimize him
because he favored Catholics — he dared to manifest a humane and liberal
feeling towards foreigners. He survived that shock, however, and a recent
excellent document from him, showing that he is not any longer a candidate
for public favor, authorizes me to say in this place, that every man who
loves his country and the interests of his race, no matter what may be his
politics, will cordially render the tribute of esteem and praise due to
Governor Seward.
[The chairman had, on taking his place, requested the meeting to
refrain from interrupting the Right Rev. Speaker, or giving any demon-
strations of applause, but here they could not restrain their feelings, and
testified their concurrence in the sentiments of the Bishop in reference to
Governor Seward, by a loud and enthusiastic burst of applause.]
Governor Seward knew too well, Bishop Hughes continued, the deep
seated prejudices of a large portion of the commimity, not to feel that he
had nothing to gain by being the advocate of justice to Catholics. But
whatever may be that distinguished statesman's future history, whatever
his situation, however much thwarted and opposed, and, perchance, for a
moment partially defeated by those who call themselves the friends of
education, it will be glory enough for him to have inscribed upon his
monument, that whilst Governor of the State of New York, he wished to
have every child of that noble State,, endowed and adorned in mind and
intellect, and morals, with the blessings of education. (Renewed cheers.)
"When therefore we presented, as every oppressed portion of the com-
munity has a right to do, our grievances to the Honorable Legislature of
the State, these gentlemen, who are represented by Mr. Ketchum, through a
speech of nine mortal columns— as the humble almoners of the public
charity— these men who are burthened with their load of official duty
SPEECHES IN CAEIiOLL HALL. 187
wMcli they arc -willing, Mr. Ketclium says, to put off, pursue us tliitlicr
•■with unabated hostility. We supposed that the Public School Society
would acquiesce in the justice of the plan of the Secretary. No, these
humble men, all zeal for thecauseof education, enter the halls of legislation
with a determined spirit of opj)osition to us, which is perliaps unparalleled,
considering the circumstances under which they acted.
One of the most difficult points in treating with these gentlemen is, to
ascertain in what particular situation, and under what particular circum-
stances, their responsibility may be discovered. They are, it is said, but
agents, they are wealthy and powerful, have every advantage in oijposin_g
humble petitioners as we are, and with all these advantages they presented
themselves there, not to dispute the justice of our claims, nor the correct-
ness of the ground on which the Honorable Secretary placed the question
before the Senate, but to appeal even in the minds of Senators, to whatever
they might iind tliere of prejudice against the Catholic religion, and the
foreigner and the descendants of the foreigner.
One of the documents of which they made .use, was published in the
"Journal of Commerce." This question had been, in the Senate, made the
special order of the day, for, I think, Friday, the 20th of May. In the
"Journal of Commerce" of the previous day, there was published a most
calumnious article, full of all those traditions against our religion, which
the minds of some of these denominations inherit ; and the Agent of the
Public School Society, sent, as we should understand, to represent justice
and truth between citizens of the same country, is found distributing this
paper all over the desks of the senators ! On that very day it was supposed
that the vote on this very question would be taken, and the agent of the
Public School Society is found supplying the senators — for I have a copy
of the papers thus furnished, with the member's name written at the top,
and the article referred to, marked with black lines, so that there could be
no over looking it — with an article containing a mock excommunication, a
burlesque invented by Sterne, and inserted in his Tristram Shandy, but
quoted by the Public School Society, (for I hold it to be their act till they
disclaim it,) as a part of our creed, and made the ground of a sneer at the
Secretary : " These are precious principles to be preserved in the con-
sciences of your petitioners !" Religious prejudice will have its reign in
the world. But it is a low feeling, especially is it a low feeling in a country,
in the fundamental principles of whose government and laws the great
fathers of our liberties insisted that conscience and religion should be ever,
free, and be regarded as above all law. There was to be no toleration, for
that implied the power not to tolerate; the word was therefore excluded
from the language of American jurisprudence. And that being the case,
it was painful to find an honorable body of men, as the members of the
Public School Society are regarded to be, employing such a means of
approaching the Senate of New York — that Senate, to which Justice, if she
found not a resting place upon the globe, like the dove to the ark, might
return, and expect every hand to be stretched out to receive her. (Loud
applause.)
If they deny that they approached that Senate with that document —
too vile and filthy to be read in this audience ; but if any gentleman has
the curiosity to see it, here (holding up a volume <)f Tristram Shandy) he
may read it word for word — let them call their agent to account. We will
not let them rob us of our reputation. We stand ambitious to be con-
sidered worthy of membership in the great American family — let them not,
after depriving us of the benefit of our taxes, destroy our reputation.
I will now, after this introduction, take up the "Remonstrance" of tie
Society. It is impossible for me not to feel indignant, when I think how
188 AECHBISIIOP HUGHES.
these liigh-miiided men have treated us, when I recollect that this same
peiitlemiin, who acted as their afjent and distributed that calumnious paper,
M-;is onco a candidate for office, and gladly received the signatures of
Catholics. And this was the recompense he offered.
I know not by whom this " Kemonstrance" was drawn up, I know not
whether all the members of the Board of Trustees approved of it, but if
they did, I trust there were no Catholics ]3resent.
In page 3 of this " Remonstrance," which is signed by the President,
" Robert C. Cornell," wc find the following declaration introductory to the
subject :
"The Legislature therefore in 1813, when the first distribution was made, very
naturally appropriated the amount apportioned to this city to these schools in the
ratio of the number of children taught in each. This mode of distribution continued
until 1824, when the subject was again brought before the legislature by the. jealousies,
disputes, and difficulties which had arisen among the recipients, and the conflicting
parties presented themselves at Albany for the purpose of sustaining their respective
claims."
Now in all the foregoing applications, in all the reports made by com-
mittees of the Common Council, you will find there has not been one in
which the subject of religion was not referred to as the ground of the
refusal of our claims ; in which it was not assumed that the laws were
opposed to giving education money, the Public School Pund or any portion
of it, to any religious denomination. This principle, it has been pretended,
and the disputes among the sects, led to the alteration of the law in 1824.
But if we refer back to the memorial proceeding from this Society itself, we
will find that no such thing existed ■wit the time. We find, that Mr.
Leonard Bleecker sent a memorial at that very period, 1824, in which he
says:
" It will not be denied, in this enlightened age, that the education of the poor is
enjoined by our holy religion, and is therefore, one of the duties of a Christian church.
Nor is there any impropriety in committing the school fund to the bands of a religious
society, so long as they are confined in the appropriation of it, to an object not neces-
sarily connected, or intermingled with the other concerns of the church, as for instatice
to the payment of teachers, because the state is sure in this case, that the benefits of
the fund, in the way it designed to confer them, will be reaped by the poor. But the
objection to the section sought to be repealed is, that the surplus moneys, after the
payment of teachers, is vested in the hands of the Trustees of a religious society, and
mingled with its other funds, to be appropriated to the erection of buildings under the
control of the trustees, which buildings may, and in all probability will, be used for
other purposes than school houses."
* Here was^ the ground taken, and yet we hear these gentlemen before the
Common Council say it was on account of constitutional difficulties, and
religious differences ; whereas it was simply because the money had been
used for an improper purpose.
In page 5 of this " Remonstrance,"' this Society takes the ground, in
opposition to the view of its being a monopoly, and a close corporation,
which it in fact is — that the same objection might be used against hos-,
pitals, asylums for the blind, the insane and the mute, dispensaries, and
houses of refuge, and they institute a comparison between these institutions
and the Public Schools.
Now, as to the fact, that the Public School Society is a close corporation,
they themselves do nol^deny that all citizens are excluded except those
who can afford to pay $10 for membership. They do not deny that, but
justify it on the ground that inasmuch as there are corporations for the
management of s-uch institutions as I have named, the same reason exists
for the cpnstitution of a corporation for the direction of the Public Schools.
And where then, pray, are the rights with which nature and nature's
God have invested th( parents of these children ? Pray, are they, who are
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 189
held competent to decide on the gravest questions affecting :he interests
of the nation, unworthy to have a voice in the education of their OM-n
children? And must they resign that to a corporation responsible neither
to them nor to the public in any formal way ? And pray, are the people
of New York lunatics, that they must have a corporation of keepers
appointed over them ? If the doctrine of this "memorial" be correct, they
are to be so considered. But there is this difference, they pay taxes for
education, and they have a right to a voice and a vote in the manner in
which their money is to be expended. If the people are to be treated as
lunatics, itiutes, or inmates of the house of refuge, then the argument of the
Public School Society is a good one. I think the comparison instituted in
the "Remonstrance" utterly fails. I cannot dwell longer upon it.
I now come to a charge made against the petitioners :
" At one time it was declared ' the Public School pystem of the city of New York is
entirely favorable to the sectarianismcf Infidelity, and opposed only to that of positive
Christianity,' that * it leaves the will of the pupil to riot in the fierceness of unrestrained
lusts,' and is ' calculated to make bad and dangerous citizens.' "
Now it is true, that we did view the Society as being opposed to religion.
There can be no doubt of that. But if that be true, it is equally true that
the evidence on which we built that conclusion was furnished by them-
selves. And how ? In every report of their's, it appears that if any thing
like a religious society presented itself, that character was enough to decide
them in resisting its application. You will find this evidenced in their
•vindication and defence, both by Mr. Sedgwick and Mr. Ketchum. They
■ contended that what tliey meant by religious instruction, was not religious
instruction — and so it may be proper for me to enter a little into the exa-
mination of the meaning of these words.
'When the Trustees make the religious character of a society the ground
of denying them a portion of their funds, what is it that constitutes the
objection? They do not decide against the infidel ; for it seems if the ap-
plicants had divested themselves of a religious character — if men of no
religious proiession — of no belief in a God or a future state, had presented
themselves, no objection would be made, and on their own premises the
Trustees would be obliged to concede to their request. What then
was the reason of the refusal, except the religious character of the appli-
caiits ? And had we not fair ground here for inferring that they are op-
posed to religion ? Examine their reports. Here is one : A Report of
the Committee on Arts, Sciences, and Schools of the Board of Assistant^
on appropriating a portion of the school money .to religious societies for
the support of schools. This is document No. 80, and at page 380 we read
as follows :
" The amount of one hundred and seven thousand dollars and upwards, as hereto-
fore stated, has been raised by annual tax in the city for purposes of a purely civil and
secular character."
Well, if the education is to be purely " civil and secular," is religion
mingled with it at all? Andifreligionisnottobemingled withit at all, then
had we not a right to infer from their own document that they were oiJ-
posed to religion, and brought up the children without any knowledge of
their responsibility to God, or of .a future life, or of any of those great
principles of religion on which the very aeeurity of society depends ? Were
we not justified in the inference? They refused our application because
we professed religion ; and had we not a right to keep our children from
the influence of a system of education that attempted to make a divorce
between literature — that is, such literature as is suited for the infant mind
— and religion; and to give instruction of a "purely civil and secular
190 AECHBISHOP UtJGHES.
character," for which we are told $10V,000 had been expended ?_ How, I
astj can Mr. Cornell stand up and deny our charge, when such indisputable
evidence of its truth is presented by their own documents ?
Did Mr. Cornell, when they defeated us, find fault with the committee of
the Assistants' Board, because they charged the Society with excluding
religion from education? No! No! Enough it was that religious socie-
ties should be defeated, and that they should continue to wield their corn-
l)lex monopoly. No matter that they were charged with having no reli-
gion. No matter at all that their education was then described as " purely
civil and secular!" This document goes on— "The appropriation of any
part of that sum to the support of schools in which the religious tenets of
any sect are tavght to any extent.''''
Well, if you excluded the tenets of all sects, you excluded all religion,
because there is no religion except what is included in the tenets of sects.
I defy you to teach the first principles of religion without teaching the
tenets of sectarianism ! Then it was on the faith of their own documents
that we charged on them the character which they had assumed, on the
strength of which they had successfully opposed, one after another, all the
denominations who reverence religion. The document proceeds :
— " would be a legal establishment of one denomination of religion over another,
tcowZt^ conflict with all the principles and purposes of our free institutions, and would
violate the very letter of that part of our constitution which so emphatically declares,
that ' Tlie free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
dlscHminatlon or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this State to all mankind.' By
granting a portion of the School"Fund to one sect to the exclusion of others, a ' prefer-
ence' is at onc.e created, a ' discrimination ' made, and the object of the great constitu-
tional guarantee is defeated; taxes are imposed for thesupport of religion, and freedom
of conscience if not directly trammelled and confined, isnotleft in the perfect and un-
shackled ^tate which onr. systems of government were intended to establish and perpe-
tuate. No difference can be perceived in principle between the taxing of the people of
England for the support of a church establishment there, and the taxing of the people
of New York for the support of schools in which the doctrines of religious denomina-
tions are taught,"
And what are we to infer from this, except that they do not teach reli-
gion at all ? But they have changed their tactics. For they have, be it
rememliered, two strings to their bow — one for those who have religion,
and one for those who have not, and so we actually find that whilst before
the Common Council of New York they are destitute of religion, and give
a purely " civil and secular education," at Albany they can be in favor of
religion !
But there is still further evidence on this point. In page 18 of the Be-
port of the debate before the Common Council, we have the explanation of
Mr, Ketclium, and it was one of the nicest managed points imaginable.
Indeed, I could not but admire the sagacity of that gentleman and his as-
sociate, Mr. Sedgwick, in steering so adroitly between the teaching of reli-
gion and the not teaching of it, so that they taught it, but yet must not
call it religion ! We put the gentlemen between the horns of a dilemma^--
we said if you do not teach religion, then you are chargeable with making
our common schools seminaries of infidelity — if you do teach it, then you
do exactly what excludes religious societies from a right to participate in
the fund ! But these gentlemen, with great skill and critical acumen, and
a little sophistry, were able to steer by a line, invisible to my mind, be-
tween the lionisof the dilemma.
In describing the different kinds of instruction, Mr. Sedgwick says :
"But, beyond that, there i.s still another branch of instruction which is properly
c&WeA rd'ujioiis, and it is because two phrases— 'religious ' and 'moral '—have been
used o;c:ibionally without as accurate apprehension of their signifioatisn, that the doca-
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 191
mentg of the trtstees have been misconstrued. But when the term 'moral ' education
is used, it only means that education which instructs th6 children in those fnndampiital
tenets of duty which are the basis of all religion."
That is to say you build the roof before you lay the foundation. For
whence, I ask, will men get their knowledge of duty, if not based on a
substratum of religion ? But here morality so called is made the basis of
religion. Well, let us apply this to the schools, and see whether any
Christian parent would submit to have his children placed under such a
system.
There is a child at one of these schools — they tell him not to lie, but
children are inquisitive, and he asks, "Why should I not lie 1" You must
answer, because God abominates a lie — there you teach religion ! You ex-
plain the reason why the child should not lie, that religion requires, and
affords the reason of the performance of the duty — not that the duty is the
basis of religion. It is not enough to tell the child you are to speak the
truth, and when you knovr and fulfil your duty then you may learn that
there is a God to whom you are responsible. Washington himself in his
Farewell Address, cautioned the nation against the man who would at-
tempt to teach morality without religion. (Cheers.) He says :•
" Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and
morality are indispensable supports. In vain woulcf that man claim the tribute of
patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the
piou.s man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their
connections with private andpublic felicity. Let it be simply asked, where is the secu-
rity for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligations desert the
oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us
wUh cautwn indulge the suppontioTif that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar
structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can
prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Had we not thenj I would ask very respectfully, a right, when every pe-
tition had been rejected on the ground that the petitioners had a religious
belief to infer that religion formed no part of their system of education,
and that the consequence which we charged upon them, and that Mr.
Cornell repudiated with so much horror, inevitably and justly followed —
namely, that the Public School Society was favorable to the sectarianism
of infidelity ?
I now go on to show what the Public School Society boast of having done
in our regard. They had ofiered in reply to our objections to passages in their
books, as, for instance, where it was stated that " John Huss was a zealous Re-
former, but trusting to the deceitful Catholics, he was taken by them and
burned at the stake " — to expunge such objectionable passages when they were
pointed out. They said, " Bishop, we submit our books to you, and if you
will have the goodness to point out any objectionable passages we will expunge
them." Well, certainly there was something very plausible and apparently
very liberal in this offer. But when the matter was pressed, it was fohnd that
all this was merely the expression of individuals — there was no guarantee that
the books would be amended. Weeks and months might be spent in examin-
ing the books, and then the approbation of the Board was necessary in order
to effect the altej-ation. Did they say that it should be given ? Never.
I pass now to another point, for observe, I do not at all think myself caHed
on to say one word in vindication of the able and eloquent and satisfactory re-
port of the Secretary of State. (Cheers.) That is not necessary. The language
of that document will be its own vindication, when the petty sophistries raised
against it shall have been long forgotten ; for, be assured, gentlemen, that what-
ever may l)e the temporary opposition to any public measure, from the moment
that I here is discovered to be inherent in it— of its essence — a principle of jus-
192 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
tice and equality, its ultimate triumph is certain, and all the opposition which
it encounters will have no more effect on it, than that of the breeze which
passes over the ocean, rufSing its surface, but destroying nothing of the
mighty and majestic element which it seems to fret and disturb. (Cheers.)
I take up this, then, not to vindicate the report, but rather in reference to
the insulting attempt, as I will call it, to deprive Catholics of the free exercise
of their own consciences, and the respect and esteem of their fellow-citizens.
In reasoning on the subject, observe the course that is taken by Mr. Cornell —
he enters into a comparison between the schools of the Public School Society,
and ours — ours supported in poverty, the humblest that may be, but still sup-
ported in a way sufficient to show our determination not to give up our rights,
or relinquish the maintenance and defence of a sound and patriotic principle.
But this gentleman compares these, our schools, with theirs on which more
than a million of tlie public money has been expended, whilst we have been
virtually shut out from all benefit from the public funds, not by any law of the
State, but by a vicious interpretation of the law. He requires us to furnish as
perfect a system as they do, with the expenditure of a million of doUare ! Ho
is reasoning with the Secretary, telling him in effect that we are troublesome
and designing people, and he says :
"Bat having in view the stringency with which the same party insisted on the ne-
cessity of religion in juxtaposition with secular education, and the warmth with which
they denounced the Public School system when they saw fit to charge it with exclud-
ing religion, and particularly when reference is had to their avowed dogma, that there is
no hope of salvation to those not of the Borrmn Catholic Church — which dogma is tww taught
in their
I thank God, that the Catholics — the long-oppressed of three hundred years,
during which the ear of the world was poisoned with calumnies against them
— have now liberty of speech, and ability to exercise it, and I call Mr. Cornell
to account for what he has here written, and to which he has affixed hi« name.
He says : " When reference is had to their avowed dogma, that t liere is
no hope of salvation to those not of the Roman Catholic Church — which
dogma is now taught in their schools."
The Catholics avow every " dogma " of their religion ; but the two state-
ments employed by Mr. Cornell are \iot\i false. It never was and never can
be a dogma of ours, that there is " No hope of salvation to those not of the
Roman Catholic Church." Neither is that dogma taught in our schools.
This false statement must be accounted for by Mr. Cornell's ignorance of
our doctrine on the one hand, and on the other his disposition to injure us.
I call upon him, I arraign him before the people of New York and the
Senate, whose confidence he has attempted to abuse, to prove his statement,
or else to retract it.
And here it may be proper for me to explain something of this matter,
for I know that in the minds of Protestants almost universally there is that
idea, and that in the theological language of the Catholic Church there is
apparent gi-ound for entertaining it. But at the same time I do know that
that language, properly understood and fairly interpreted, does not imply the
dogma imputed to us by Mr. Cornell.
It is very true that we believe that out of the true Church of Christ there
is no salvation — fir.st proposition.
It is true that we believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church of
Christ — second proposition.
It is very true that notwithstanding these propositions, there is no dogma
of our creed which teaches that a Protestant may not hope to be saved, or
may not go to heaven. Now, how is this explained ? In this way. When
we speak of the Church we mean the Church as Christ, and his apostles did
— in the sense, that the ordinary means for the salvation of mankind are tlie
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLI. HALL. 193
doctrines and institutions wliioh Jesus left on earth, which have all descended
in the Church with our history and our name. Tliis we believe, but we do
not believe that God has deprived Himself, because He instituted these things,
of the means of saving whomHe will. AVe do not believe that on this ac-
count the power of the Almighty is abridged. Hence it is consistent with
our dogmas to believe, that God, who is a juit Judge, as well as a merciful
Father, will not condemn any one for involuntary error. Their judgment
will be individual; they were externally out of the Church, but was it by
their own will or the accident of their birth and education in a false relig-
ion ? ' Did they believe that religion to be true, in good faith, and in the sim-
plicity of their hearts ? Were they ready to receive the light and grace of
truth as God might oifer it to them ? Then, in that case, though not belong-
ing to the Catholic Church by external profession, they belonged to it by
their internal disposition. -
Consequently we are not authorised to deny hope of salvation to those not
of the Catholic Church, unless so far as the errors in which they have been
involved, have, been voluntary and culpable on tlieir part. And this is no
new doctrine, as our opponents would have seen had they consulted tlie
writings of the highest authorities in our Church. St. Thomas Aquinas —
one of the greatest minds that ever contributed to enlighten the human race,
as Protestants themselves acknowledge — writing in the 11th or 12th centnry,
speaits of a man who is not even a Protestant but a Pagan — a man wlio has
never heard of Christ or of Christianity, and he, supposing that man to be
moral — sincere — acting according to the best lights God has given him — tells
ns, God would sooner send an angel to guide him to the way of salvation,
than that such an one should perish. Such is the sentiment of St. Thomas
Aquinas expressed in his works, and his works are approved of by our
Church. — How then can Mr. Cornell or any other individual say that we
enter into judgment respecting those who die out of the pale of the Church ?
I publicly call upon Mr. Cornell to retract or qualify his official statement.
Sentiments according with those I have quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas
I have myself preached in the Cathedral of Xew York, and similar ones
have been abundantly proclaimed by others, and amongst them I would
mention a very distinguished French Bishop — then the Abbe Fressinous. In
the third volume of his Conferences, he has one special sermon on the sub-
ject of Exclusive Salvation, and he shows that of all Christian denomina-
tions there is no one more abounding in charity on this point than the Cath-
olic Church. The same explanations are to be found in the writings of Bos-
suet, St. Francis of Sales, and St. Augustine.* With these facts well known,
* Salvation out of the CHnECH. — In concluding this sinaple and brief view of the
Catholic doctrine, it may be well to state here what is to be correctly understood of that
Catholic sentiment, " Odt of the Chubch there is no salvation."
" We do not pretend to deny, (says Mr. Bergier,) that there are numbers of men
born in heresy who by reason of their little light, are in invincible ignorance, and con-
sequently excusable before God : these, in the opinion of all: judicious Divines, ongbt
not to be ranked with heretics." This is the very doctrine of St. Augustine, (Epis.
43, ad glorlam et alias, n. 1.) St. Paul tells us, in his Epistle to Tiius, c. 3, ' A man
that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid ; knowing that he that is
such a one, is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.' As to
those who defend an opinion, either false or perverse, without obstinacy, and who have
not invented it from a daring presumption, but received it from their parents after they
were seduced and had fallen into error, if they diligently and industriously seek for the
truth, and if they hold themselves ready to embrace it as soon as they shall have found
it, such as these also are not to be classed with heretics." L. 1, de liapt. contra Donat.
c. 4, n. 5. i-, V c
" Those who fall with heretics, without knowing it, believing it to be the Church of
Jesus Christ, are in a different case from those who know that the Catholic Church is
spread over the whole world." — L. 4, c. 1, n. 1.
" ibe Church of Jesus Christ may have through the power of her spouse, children
13
194 ARCHBISHOP HrGHES.
how did those gentlemen venture to take advantage of the.r and our rela-
tive situations, and calumniate us when we had no opportunity of repelling
the unfair attack ?
Besides, Mr. Cornell says— "Which is now taught in their schools.' I
deny the truth of that statement, and demand his authority.
But now, would it, think you, he improper on my part, considering that
Mr. Cornell is not present, to intimate some of the liherties which ho has
taken with us in our absence ?
throngliout this document, lie has labored to prove tliat we are Catholics,
and not only that, but to show what our religion i.s, though I am ratlier at a
loss to imagine where he .studied Catholic theology, in uhich if he should
persevere, I would suggest to him to consult better authorities than the
" Journal of Commerce "' and " Tristniin Sliaiidy." (Laughter and cheers.)
Now it never occurred to us to nsk of what religion is Mr. Cornell and
the Public School Society. The whole ground assumed by them is, tliat
they are not a " religious society "—well wliat are tlicy ? Are they an irre-
ligious society ? Not at all. They are members of churches, and I have
taken the pains to ascertain that Mr. Cornell is a member of Dr. Spring's
Church, and if he lectures the Catholics, would it be very wrong in me to
speak of the doctrines of his creed? Let us look at the Westminster Con-
fession of Faith, the rule of Presbyterian dogmas, and see whether Mr. Cor-
nell opens the gates of Heaven to all religious denominations. I quote from
the Westminster Confession, as adopt*! and amended in the United States,
and published by Towar and Hogan, Philadelphia. In page 111 it is said :
" The visible church consists of all those throughout the world that peofess
the true religion."
So to be a member of the visible church, you must " profess " the true
faith — " together with their children " — happy children ! (a laugh)—" and
this is the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of
God, OTJT OF -WHICH THERE IS NO ORDINAKT POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION."
Here is another statement of Mr. Cornell : " They are not merely the in-
cidental remarks of the historian, or extracts from the Holy Scriptures,
' without note or comment,' to which such strong exception has been taken
in relation to the Public Schools, but they are such as ever have, and in the
opinion of your remonstrants, must ever tend, if sustained by tax imposed
upon the anathematized portion of the community, to destroy public har-
mony ; and such as would prove anything rather than a social ' benefit.' "
Now, by using the word "anathematized" he conveys the impression
that all out of the pale of ourChurch are under our anathema. I demand
the proof. I have studied our holy religion many a day, but never jet
have I discovered any such anathema, and I defy Mr. Cornell to point it
out.
Mr. Cornell goes on to say : "Your remonstrants had supposed that the
fact of the Public School Society being composed of men professing every
variety of religious faith, would neutralize sectarian tendencies and secure it
against almse.^'
Now, there is something exceedingly specious in this, but it is indeed a
very spurious position. They refuse our application on the ground that
we are a religious society, and when we charge them with not being
a religious society, they repudiate it as a stigma on their character.
And what is their remedy ? That they " will neutralize sectarian tenden-
cies by the variety of the religions that they introduce." How is this ?
They are all members of churches— and that does them honor — but when-
and servants ; if they grow not jjroud, they shall have part in Hia inheritance ; but
if they are proud, they shall remain without." Ibid. c. 16, n. 23.
SPEECHES IIT CAEEOLL HALL. 195
ever they come within the magical circle of their official character, then,
like negative and positive brought together in just proportions, they neu-
tralize each other ! ! Is this really the position that these gentlemen as-
sume ? How arc tlie Trustees chosen ? In the most beautiful manner 1 One
or two Catholics are taken — a Universalist — perchance, and so of other de-
nominations, and theiy they say, " We are of all religions !" You will iind
that the mass of the Society belongs to one sect, of which little or nothing
js said, and that an odd one is taken from each of the other sects, to sanc-
tify their acts ! There is a sufficient majority of one denomination. There
is atendency and aim which I am not unwilling to, proclaim — a secret- un-
derstanding— not so very secret either — to the effect that ''as there is a
large foreign population in New York, and mostly Catholic, our liberties
would not be safe unless the interests of Catholics were neutralized in their
education." We reject that idea with scorn, that Catholics have to learn
the principles of liberty from them. At a period when Protestantism was
as little dreamt of as steam navigation. Catholics were the schoolmasters of
liberty to the nations of the world, in the principles of liberty. They were
Catholics who wrung the great charter of English liberty from the hands
of the tyrant. And was that their first eifort in the cause of freedom ? No.
That was only the written recognition of their rights, which the encroach-
ments of his predecessors had diminished, and having thus secured their
rights, they maintained them down to the period of the Reformation, wheji
their high and honorable notions of liberty were trampled in the dust, and
were never restored till the Revolution, and when that so boasted event in
the Iristory of England took place, it only recognized the rights lost at the
peiiod of the Reformation, wliich Catholics for centxiries before had known
and enjoyed. Let them not sny, then, that our religion is inimical to lib-
erty— that is a reproach which we spurn — which we abominate and abhor!
We have nothing to learn from them of human liberty. Their part is to
imitate us, not ours to imitate them I (Loud applause.)
If that is the principle referred to, we understand it perfectly well, and
it is of no use for those gentlemen to moot it for the purpose of showing that
our claim should be denied. Was that indeed their object ? Not at all.
But their object was, with hands that should have been better employed,
to rake up that wretched remnant of prejudice against us, and pander to
the vitiated taste that could relish it.
We see, then, that so far as this " Remonstrance" is concerned, there is not
one solitary proposition which should for one moment have arrested the
minds of the Legislature. The bill proposed by the honorable Secretary of
State contemplated no special favor. Much as I honor that distinguished
individual, I would not esteem him, as I do, if he had in his bill proposed
anything which should have raised us above our fellow-citizens of other
denominations. But the bill only places us on an equality with others —
with that we are satisfied — with nothing less will we ever be satisfied.
(Loud cheers.)
But, hitherto, these gentlemen have assumed various shapes. They have
viewed with self-complacency the beauty of their system, and as for their
few schools — few in comparison with the number of destitute and unprp-
vided children— I have nothing to say against them. I proposed to place
our schools under their direction, so far as regarded their police and man-
agement. But I would not permit them to teach our childret that Catho-
lics were deceitful — that Galileo was put into the Inquisition and punished
for the heresy that the earth revolved on its own axis around the sun.
Galileo's crime was not teaching sound philosophy, but bad theology-
wishing the Church to declare that his theory was in accordance with the
Scriptures. For reasons like these I would not allow them to mislead our
196 ABCHBISHOP HUGHES.
children, but I was willing to allow the gentlemen the external manage
inent of our schools. They, however, would have universal rule, or none
at all.
What has been their panacea for all complaints 1 To invite the City-
Council to visit the schools ! And certainly, I presume, it would be impos-
sible to visit their schools, without being satisfied with thex" appearance.
But had I been able to have made my voice heard in the Senate of the
State, when they made the proposition to visit their schools, I should have
proposed something like an amendment. I would have prayed these sen-
ators, in the name of humanity and their country, and of all the beneyo-
lence that beats in the human breast, to visit — not the schools, but the
lanes and alleys and obscure resorts of the poor neglected children of New
York, and there see, not how much is done, but how much is left undone.
These are the portions of the city that should be visited. It is utterly im-
possible, owing to their scattered condition, to learn the numbers of chil-
dren in this city who are deprived by these gentlemen of the blessings of
education. We, who mingle with the people, and have the opportunity of
learning the dislike of this system — that they would no more trust their
children to it, than to that tyrannical system of British misgovernment
which their fathers knew so well, and from which they derived that sad
legacy of ignorance and poverty. I refer to the laws which made educa-
tion a crime in Ireland, and which have left the inhabitants of that country
the degraded but unbroken people that they are to this day, after a perse-
cution of three hundred years. (Cheers.)
It is for these poor, neglected, uneducated children, that I plead. Their
parents will not send them to the Public School whilst constituted as at
present, and I approve of their resolution. I trust they never will send
their children to schools managed by men who can send to the Senate of
this State a burlesque upon our creed, and represent it as a genuine
exhibition of our faith and principles. Bather will we trust to the kind
and merciful Providence of God, than voluntarily relinquish a principle by
which we mamtain the right implanted in the breast of every parent, and
secured by the laws, to have a voice in the education of his child. It is
these children that should be visited. Then would these Honorable Sen-
ators, whom I know to be above all those petty prejudices which have been
appealed to, do justice, and apply a remedy so far as the law would au-
thorize them.
I must now soon conclude my remarks for this evening. I will merely
refer to the objection of the Society to the bill of Mr. Spencer — its tendency
to introduce party politics. Everything is held in this country to be in the
hands of the people ; yet these gentlemen, after enjoying a monopoly for
sixteen years, think it a great misfortune if the tax-payers should be
allowed a voice at all in the selection of the teachers in the schools which
they support, or any share whatever in their management.
The next objection to the bill is, its want of uniformity. Because they
happen to have school-houses exactly one like the other, and have a uni-
form style of books, the large, and liberal, and statesmanlike plan of the
Honorable Secretary should be ^ven up, because, forsooth, these "humble
almoners" pronounce it void of uniformity 1 " Humble almoners," who,
after coiling their roots around the Common Council, and making them
judges in the cause, go to Albany to defeat our claims. Well, they may call
themselves "humble almoners" if they please, but they remind me very
Aiuch of the beggar in Gil Bias, who, when he asked alms, always took good
care to have his musket ready !
I have now gone briefly throtigh this part of the subject, and I ask you
whether we can have any confidence in men who can stoop to such artifices
SPEECHES IN CAREOLL HALL. 197
as I have exposed ? I call upon tbem to vindicate themselves frouj tho
diahonoi- of having circulated that document from Tristram Shandy. It
was done by one of their colleag'ies and their official agent, who when
charged with it, replied that he had done so under instructions?
What instructions ? Did they instruct him ? If not, let them
say so by a public act. Until they do so, we justly chai-ge them
with being the traducers of our reputation — I charge them on
the ground that they are responsible for the act of their agent,
and they should have known better. Gentlemen claiming to be ex-
clusively the judges of what is a proper system of education — who hold
that you are unworthy of having anything to do with the schools of New
York — should have known that that document was from Tristram
Shandy, written, I presume, for his amusement by Mr. Sterne — who, though
numbered amongst the clergy of the Church of England, was believed to
be an infidel — a man, who secretly scoffed at every thing sacred — and the
working of whose rank imagination is too offensive for the eye of delicacy.
Surely, then, these gentlemen should not have drawn weapons from such a
source, for the purpose of destroying the reputation of any class of their
fellow-citizens.
This is not the first occasion on which we have been misrepresented, and
religious gentlemen, whose avowed purpose it is to preach the gospel of
peace, have taken up the habit of abusing us, and have rung the changes
on this topic, till in some instances some of their audiences — more liberal
than they — have left the place disgusted. They remind me of a saying of
this same Sterne, who when quizzing the credulity of the people of Eng-
land— for he was a great wag — said tliat occasionally he was straitened
for the price of a dinner, but he could always manage to make a good meal
of OliesJiire cheese; taut it also happened, that oftentimes he was in a similar
strait in his official capacity, and was called on to preach when he had not
a word of a sermon prepared, and then he took " a fling at Popery." The
people went away edified and delighted. For this reason he says, " I call
Popery my Cheshire cheese 1' (Loud laughter,) It seems to me that the
occupants of half the pulpits of New Yjork,.are nearly in the same predica-
ment, and would die of inanition, were it not that their stock of "Cheshire
cheese " is still unexhausted. (Renewed laughter and applause.)
1 think I can safely say, that in none of our churches will you hear such
abuse. AVe never touch upon secular affairs— you will not even hear from
our pulpits, harangues about abolition. We.explain and defend our creed,
and I trust, preach chq,rity, and peace, and order. But it is not so with
those who assail us as I ' have described, as I will have occasion to show,
when treating of Mr. Ketchum's speech, which I intend to do on to-mor-
row evening.
The Bishop then concluded, after speaking nearly two hours, and a vote
of thanks having been passed to the Chairman, the large and attentive
meeting adjourned.
THURSDAY EVENING!, June ITth.
The audience on this occasion was still more numerous than on the pre-
vious evening. Several distinguished senators, and influential gentlemen
of other denominations, were present. The meeting was organized by the
appointment of the same Chairman who presided at the former meeting —
and at eight o'clock
The Right Ret. Bishop Hughes resumed his remarks as follows : The
198 iECHBISHOP HUGHES.
question, Gentlemen, which has called us together, has had two stages of
progress which must be kept distinct, in order to comprehend its present
position. We have from time to time applied to the Common Council of
this city for relief, which we knew they had the power to grant, and we
had applied as it were in an isolated, and, if you please, in a somewhat
sectarian character. The reason of this will be easily understood,^ when
you reflect that we had no intention to disturb the system of education so
generally approved by our fellow-citizens. Our object was not to destroy
that which was good for oihers, if they thought so, but to find something
that might be equally good for ourselves. Accordingly, w6 applied as
Catholics, because it appeared that 'there were no other denominations
whose consciences suffered under the operation of that system. _ And we
did suppose that these considerations would have had some weight with
the Honorable Council. We might — as we are reproached with not having
done — we might have interfered with the regulations of these schools —
asked for a different order of books — required the erasure of such and such
passages, and the insertion of others. They reproach us with not doing so.
But if we had done so, it would, in the first place, have been pains thrown
away, and in the second place, we might thereby have disobliged many of
our fellow-citizens of other denominations. Without at all pressing the
question upon them, farther than observing that even the reading of the
Holy Scriptures according to the Protestant version, was looked upon by
us as an invasion of our conscientious rights, they took it up as an objec-
tion against the reading of the Scriptures at all ; as if the presence of a
Bible within the walls of a school was a thing we could not bear. It is
needless to say how wrong that inference was. But we did not at all wish
to disturb the Protestant's approbation of hii version of the sacred volume,
nor the order that seemed so generally approved, and that was the reason
of the mode of our application. In the course of my speech, therefore, you
will understand, that we did not so apply for relief, because we wished to
be apart, separate from the rest of the community — that it was not because
we were exclusive or intolerant, as they have charged upon us ; but because
we supposed that they would not wish to have their children hear the
Catholic version of the Bible read, and therefore they have no right to im-
pose on our children the hearing of the Protestant version. If that be
sectarianism, then we plead guilty to the charge ; but without feeling and
acting so, we could not have our consciences simple, and in their integrity
upright towards God.
When, however, after having gone through the ceremony — for it was
nothing else— of appearing before the Common Council, and having been
heard and denied, as a. matter of course, when we had gone through the
ceremony required by the formulary of the law, then, indeed, we threw our-
selves on our general rights as citizens, and appealed to that tribunal, to
which we must always look with confidence for the redress of every griev-
ance that presses on us in our social condition. Nevertheless our opponents
followed us there, and fastened upon us the character, in which it had been
the duty imposed on us by necessity to appear before the Common Council.
We have had occasion already to point out some evidences of tl;e use made
of that in the " Remonstrance." You read with what recklessness of truth
—I am sorry to say— it was charged in that document, that we were in-
tolerant—that we taught there was no salvation out of the Catholic Church,
and so forth. There are in that document of the Public School Society,
many other passages requiring examination, but as the substance of them
is contained in the speech of the learned gentleman who was their official
oi-gan before the Senate, I suppose that the refutation of the one, will be
the refutation of both ; and, therefore, I deem it unnecessary to refer further
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 199
to tliat memorial. They — that gentleman particularly — referred in the
course of the debate, to a proposition for accommodation on the part of
the Society previous to the last decision of the Public Council. They-
alleged that nothing could be fairer, but when we had examined that, we
found that of not a solitary grievance of which we had complained did it
take notice. Not the slightest notice. The whole proposal was that they
should correct the books, so far as their guardianship of the rights of con-
science — for they are conscience keepers for the different sects in this com-
munity !— would allow. They would accommodate us by striking out
passages insulting and offensive to our minds, and injurious to our children.
That was all the amount of the concessions. Then the second proposition
was, that they would purchase from us — they can aftord to do so — the only
school-house which our humble means have enabled us to erect during the
sixteen years of privation from the bei;ieiits of Common School Education.
These were the only two features that distinguished that offer of accommo-
dation. But Mr. Ketchum did not find it convenient to read the proposi-
tions that we submitted at the same time, and which, candor should have
acknowledged, removed from us every imputation of being actuated by
sectarian motives, or having in view the appropriation of the public money
to the propagation of our religion.
I will now commence with reading but a small portion of that, sufficient,
however, to show you that on this ground, so far as information was con-
cerned, they had it ; and if, with that in their possession, they conceal the
truth, and suppressed it, on their heads be the responsibility that attaches
to such conduct.
"What is the great difficulty — the legal difficulty ? That public money
can not be applied to sectarian uses. Very well. "We met that ; we said
here are propositions that cover our whole ground :
*' That there shall be reserved to the Managers or Trustees of these schools respec-
tively, the desigoation of the teachers to be ajxpointed, who shall be subjected to the
examination of a Committee of the Public School Society, shall be fully qualifled for the
duties of their appointment, and of unexceptionable moral character; or in the event of
the Trustees or Managers failing to present individuals for these situations of that
description, then, individuals having like qualifications of unexceptionable character, to
be selected and appointed by the Z-*ublic School Society, who shall be acceptable to the
Managers or Trustees of the Schools to which they shall be appointed ; but no person
to be continued as a teacher in either of the schools referred to against the wishes of the
Managers or Trustees thereof."
That was the first proposition, showing them that so far as the teachers
were concerned, all we wanted were men in whom we could place confi-
dence. The second proposition was :
" 2d. That the school shall be open at all times to the inspection of any authorized
agent or officer of the city or State government, with liberty to visit the same, and ex-
amine the books used therein, or the teachers, touching the course and system of in-
struction pursued in the schools, or in relation to any matter connected therewith."
So that there was no concealment there, they themselves should be the
inspectors, and I will say it boldly, that if they had been actuated by that
deejj feeling of humanity for which they claim credit, they would have ac-
cepted that proposal to take our children under their care affording to them
the same means of gaining future happiness as they did to others.
The document goes on :
" The undersigned are willing that, in the superintendence of their schools, every
specified requirement of any and every law passed by the Legislature of the State, or
the ordinances of the Common Council, to guard agiiinst abuse in the matter of common
school education, shall be rigidly enforced and exacted by the competent public authori-
ties.
" They believe that the benevolent object of every such law is to bring the means of
education within the reach of the child of every poor man, without damaging their re-
ligion, whatever it may be, or the religious rights of any such child or parent.
200 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
" It is irf consequence of what they consider the damaging of their religion and tbeir
religious rights, in the schools of the Public School Society, that they have been obliged
to withdraw their children from them. The facts which they have already submitted,
and which have been more than sustained by the sentiments uttered on behalf of the
Society, in the late discussion, prov&that they were not mistaken.
" As regards the organization of their schools, they are willing that they should be
under the same police and regulations as those of the Public School Society. The same
hours, the same order, the same exercises, even the same inspection.
" But the books to be used for exercises in learning to read or spell, in history, geo-
graphy, and all such elementary knowledge, as could have a tendency lo operate on
their heiiits and minds, in reference to their religion, must be, so far as Catholic chil-
dren are concerned, and no farther, such as they shall judge proper to put in their
bands. IJut none of their dogmas, nothing against the creed of any other denomina-
tion shall be introduced."
Reference is here made to the sentiments uttered by the advocates of the
Public School Society in their opposition to our claim before the Common
Council. Many of my present audience were perhaps there, and tliey can
remember what' an array of individuals otherwise distinguislied by their
character — what an array of bigotry and of prejadice, and we must say, of
profound ignorance, was presented against us. One reverend gentleman
came there and said, in reference to our objection to the Protestant version
of. the Bible, that one of our comments taught " the lawfulness of murder-
ing heretics." Before the Common Council, I brought that gentleman to
account, and I assure you, that considering his grey hairs, and the respect
that is due to age and the sacred character of a minister of peace, I felt
humbled at beholding the degraded position in which he found himself be-
fore I had done. He had however obtained a copy of an old version of the
Scriptures, published by the Catholic refugees in the time of Queen Eliza-
beth, who wishing to prepare the way for an invasion by the Spanish, wrote
a series of notes on the Scriptares which they thought would tend to effect
that end. So soon, however, as these notes became known in England and
Ireland, they were scouted with horror by all professing the Catholic name.
A few copies of that version, however, remained, lost and forgotten ; and an
ignorant publisher in Cork, thinking to make a profitable speculation, ob-
tained one of them, and not knowing, as was afterwards proved, the differ-
ence between it and the authorized version, he undertook to publish another
edition of it. In the process of publication, however, the character of the
work became known, and the Archbishop of Dublin forbade the publica-
tion. The publisher was ruined, and he commenced a suit for damages.
The matter was referred to in Committees of the Housfe of Commons, and
of the House of Lord.?, and all the particulars of the case were, of course,
thus given the greatest possible publicity. Well, the publisher being de-
prived of his anticipated sale in Ireland, where the Catholics would not pur-
chase such a book, thought that by sending some to this country, people as
ignorant as himself might purchase them, and thus the work might not
prove a dead loss. In this way a copy fell into the hands of one of these
gentlemen, and what do they do ? "Why about the same period that " Maria
Monk" was published — and I know not, but from the same press — they
emitted an edition of this Bible, in order to excite public odium against their
Catholic fellow-citizens ! It was then, with a copy of that in his hand, that
that clergyman came forward to prove, by" means of that forgery, that we
taught the lawfulness of murdering heretics. Then, besides that, there was
another gentleman, and he, in speaking on the subject of those very schools,
.and offering reasons why we should be denied the benefits of education, in-
stituted a comparison — all the others had, with great professions of respect,
and benevolent feelings for us, said " it was not because we were Catholics,
that they opposed us," oh ! no, they always qualified it — but he instituted a
oomparison between the religion of Fenelon and Voltaire, and with marvel-
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 201
lous candor, for^^etting the preface, admitted that he opposed us heoause wa
were Catholics! This gentleman said, that if he had no alternative, he
would sooner be of the religion of Voltaire, than that of Fenelon. These
are tlie sentiments to which I allude, and to which reference is here made,
wlien we say that such sentiments are only calculated to strengthen the con-
viction, that our Catholic children from the prejudices against their parent-
age and religion, had no chance-of justice in those schools.
The committee to whom was referred an examination of the schools, make
a report, and in that, after quoting the two propositions for accommodation,
they take occasion to say : — " Your Committee deem it proper to remark, in
vindication of the School Society, that they were only one of the num-
erous remonstrants against the prayer of the petitioners. Their views were
represented at the late discussion before the Board only by tlieir legal ad-
visers, Messr.^. Sedgwick and Ketchum. The other gentlemen who partici-
pated in the discussion represented other bodies, which are not in any man-
ner connected witli them. Sentiments were uttered by them which the
Scliool Society do not entertain, and for which they are not justly accountable.'
So they say, but by \vhom ? It would go abroad that this was a declara-
tion from the whole body of the Public School Society. I do not believe
tliat was the fact, and I have no reason to believe it. Because I do know
that these gentlemen used, or at least admitted, this sentiment — this bad sen-
timent of their associates — for the purpose of defeating us, and they were
perfectly satisfied with the victory, without at all disclaiming the dishonor-
able means they had employed to secure it. But as easily could the English
efface the stigma that rests upon them from their employment of the Indian's
tomahawk, during their warfare with America. And I ask them is tliere on
their records, a disapproval of the declaration of Dr.- Spring, or of Dr.
Bond? — the one, that we would murder heretics, and the other, that the
religion of Voltaire was to be preferred to that of Fenelon ? Have they in
any one official document disowned that ? We challenge them to show, tliat
the question of a disclaimer has ever been mooted ? On the contrary, we
have reason to believe, that they approved of these statements made by Drs.
Spring and Bond, and that from their own document too, signed by the
president and secretary, which goes nearly as far. And yet these are the
men to whom we are required to give the management of the education of
our children! They have hedged education around with an impenetrable
wall, beyond which no applicant from our body can 'be admitted, except on
terms that violate our civil and religious rights. A state of ignorance ana
degradation is the destiny assigned to those who will not submit to their
Procrustean system, to the dimensions of which all must submit to be adapted.
The Society acknowledge that Messrs. Ketchura and Sedgwick are their
official organs. Well, we find Mr. Sedgwick in the speech referred to on last
evening, absolutely disclaiming the teaching of religion. He said it was a
mistake to suppose that what was called religious instruction, meant anything
more than simple morality, which he stated to be the basis of all religion.
And do these gentlemen intend to reverse the order of the Almighty, and by
giving this precedence to morality, to say that men must be good without a
motive, and then they may learn religion ? How then can they quarrel with
us for saying, that they attempted^ what Mr. Spencer says well, is impossible,
to divorce religion from education ? It was on that ground that they appeared
before the Common Council and defeated our claims: for you saw yesterday
and to-day, the crime charged upon us, the disqualifying circumstance, was,
that we belonged to a religious society, and the public money was not to be
appropriated in any way except in the promotion of " purely secular educa-
tion." When we told them, that we supposed they were sincere in their
declaration; and that by divorcing religion from education, thusS leaving the
202 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
cLildi-en without the necessary motive to virtue and morality, and wholly des
titute of iiuy principle to curb their rising passions, they seemed to exclaim,
"Oh! what an impious set of men you suppose us to be. Atheists! " No
not exactly, but I accuse you of being what yourselves assume. You defeat
all applications made by a|:iplicants professing religion. You contend that,
religion must not be any part of state education. Well then how can you
bo dissatislied if we call you anti-religious, according to the principles you
have yourselves assumed ?
The fact is, that in order to conciliate those whose minds are haunted by
a certain spectre, of a union between Church and State, and in order to
bring them to the support of the Society, they pretended to meet their views
exactly, then again, on the other hand, attempted to satisfy the scruples of
conscientious parents, by playing the several sects one against the other, and
with so much adroitness, that the whole community came to the desired
conclusion, that the interests of education and morality were perfectly safe
in the hands of the Society, and could not be safe in the hands of any other.
In taking up the speech of Mr. Ketchum, I must premise that he has
divided it into two parts, and that of the many columns by which it is sup-
ported, the first two or thr^ee arc occupied with a detailed history of the
legislation, so called, of the Common Council on this question. Now, I
understand the part of this gentleman — who has perhaps as deep a knowl-
edge of the mystery of political wire-drawing as any other gentleman of his
profession in the State — I understand his introduction of this matter, entirely
foreign to the subject. His object was to impress the minds of the Senators
with the idea that in New York, the question had been decided — that Boards
of Aldermen had been changed — the position of parties changed — applica-
tions had been made, from time to time, for sixteen years, and that after the
gravest reflection, under all possible variety of circumstances, the answer
uniformly was, that it would be a violation of something that he calls "a
great principle " — which, however, he does not think proper to define — if our
claims were admitted. He wished to convey the idea that if there had been
any thing just, or proper, or true in our claims, it could not have escaped the
notice of public officers in New York — the immediate representatives of the
people, and that consequently, the Senators should approach the subject with,
minds already biased and prejudiced against us. The gentleman wished to
lead the honorable legislators to say, "What! shall we on the examination
pf one hour — at this distance from the city of New York — undertake to
reverse the judgment sustained by the uniform concurrence of the various
Boards that have constituted the public Councils of that city for sixteen
years ! " There was great generalship in all that, on the part of the learned
gentleman.
But I dispute the principle, in toto, which the gentleman assumes, and
before that Honorable Senate, I would maintain that the gentleman has no
foundation whatevei', for his assumption; and that this question should be
viewed by them as if approached for the first time.
And what is my reason for assuming this position? You will mark that
the learned gentleman frequently styles the Common Council " the repre-
sentatives of the people;" my argument in reply, then is, that so far as
regards this School Question, they never were the "representatives of the
people," for that question never was made one that could affect their election
in the most remote degree. At least, so we thought. So far as we are con-
cerned, we are right. True, whilst we were meeting to study this subject
and bring it under public notice, these gentlemen of the Society were ever
and anon charging i s with political designs, and I recollect something of an
amusing nature connected with that. It was my duty on the day succeeding
the Deblite before the Common Council, to proceed to Albany, for the pur-
SPEECHES IN CAKEOLL HALL. 203
pose of giving confirmation; I went — preaclied three times next day, Sunday
— on Monday, a very stormy day, I drove to Troy, for t)ie purpose of visiting
tlie olinrclies there, and on Tuesday, I returned to this city. Well, what was
the story? — of course, I do not say got up by these gentlemen, nor by the
Public School Society — but it was said, that I, having taken tea with tlio
Aldeimen, a bargain was struck between us, and I was to go to Albany, to
get thu Catholics to vote against theQovernor, and then all would be right!
(Laughter.) That was a specimen of the stories that were circulated ; but
while we were thus charged, they who brought the accusation were them-
selves not idle in that very department. The subject was introduced to tlieir
pulpits, and their congregations were lectured on it, and from that may be
traced the attempt to defeat Governor Seward.
But we never made this a political question, and the Common Council
never acted on it "as the rejiresentatives of the people," because it never
was applied as a test; but if the question were put between the Secretary's
plan and the Public School Society, the latter would soon break down any
Board that would undertake to support them. We were denied, it is true,
by the Common Council, but we never looked on them as acting in that
matter as the representatives of the people. We regarded them as indepen-
dent judges. And really there is little ground for surprise at their decisions
In the premises.
Now I will suppose a case. Let us take that of a bank, for it is, perhaps,
as good an illustration as I can furnish at the moment. A citizen has a con-
troversy with the bank, and that controversy comes to a trial. The citizen
complains that he is injured by the directors of the bank, he makes out his
ease, but in the end, he finds, contrary to all his just anticipations, and all his
views of justice, that he is defeated, and judgment given against him. Well,
he thinks this very hard. But he happens to learn that the judge, before
whom the case was tried, and the jury who rendered the verdict, are all
directors of the bank, and his wonder at the result of the trial ceases. Do
you see the application? These gentlemen after having excluded all religious
societies, made the word religion a kind of disqualification in a Christiaa
community in the year 1834 — after that, with the subtlety which proves that
they are wise in their generation, they get an act passed, by which the Com-
mon Council are made ex-offlcio members of the Public School Society, and
thus constituted them parties and judges in the cause. Let me not be mis-
understood. I do not suppose for a moment, that any gentleman of that
Common Council would, at any time, knowingly deviate from the path of
justice and duty, on account of his official connection with that Society.
But at the same time, I do know, that there is a powerful influence in asso-
ciation, against which the laws with great wisdom have guarded the judicial
bench, when they declare that a judge should be of a single mind — elevated
far above all selfish considerations — and whose interests could never be
affected by the result of any ofBcial act which he might be called on to exe-
cute, or any sentence which it might be, his duty to pronounce. Here, then,
were aldermen of different parties, elected from time to time, and so made
members — part and parcel — of this Society, and, I ask, would it h.Tve been
a gracious thing in them, after having been so honored with a place in it, to
become adverse to the interests of that body? Let us bear in mind, too,
that there is with most people a regard for consequences, and no alderman
could imagine he would greatly benefit his interests by opposing a corpo-
ration that has acquired nearly the whole control of all the public money
appropi-iated for purposes of education in New York, and having its depen-
dents spread from one end of the city to the other. I think it would require
a strong and elevated mind-, an unusual amount of moral courage, to enable
uny man, so' situated, to oppose such a corporation.
204 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
I do not, then, admit the reasoning of Mr. Ketclium, for I deny hia
premises, that the Common Council ever were " the representatives of the
people" on this subject.
I will now commence my review of this speech. I read it carefully from
beginning to end, and I was myself impressed with the idea that it scarcely
required an answer. I was quite convinced of that, so far as the honorable
Senators were concerned, because I knew that to the minds of men accus-
tomed to reasoning and to detect at a glance where the strength of a posi-
tion rested, that speech must have appeared a thing altogether out of
place. Nevertheless, it was hinted to me that the speech was not intended
for Senators alone, and the readiness with which Mr. Ketchum could fur-
nish the report went considerably to strengthen that opinion. It was said
that though to me the speech might seem weak, yet to the generality of
readers, particularly those unacquainted with the subject, it might seem'
very specious, and produce in their minds the very conclusions opposite to
those which we would wish established. On that ground I have taken it
up, and I must say that with regard to Mr. Ketchum himself, I have the
kindest possible feeling ; and i^ in the course of my remarks, I should
happen to speak in a manner seemingly disrespectful, I beg it may not be
considered as having been so intended. Of the gentleman himself, I can-
not say anything disrespectful — of his speech I hope I may be permitted to
say whatever the evidence may authorize. I mention his name with per-
fect freedom, because his name is attached to the speecli, and because prin-
cipally he is the official organ of that Society, and what he says is already
endorsed by them.
After his introduction, Mr. Ketchum says : " This probably may account
very sensibly for the fact, that in the city of New York the portion of the
school fund allotted to her, was to be distributed by these almoners of her
charity whom her representatives thought proper to designate. Now, I
ask, was there anything inconsistent with sound principles in this? Is
there anything in it which violates the principle of the largest lilierty, and
the purest democracy, of which we hear something in this Report?"
Stop, Mr. Ketchum ! I tell you there is not one word in that whole Re-
port against such a state of things as that you represent to the minds of
the Senators by making a wrong application. What is represented as con-
trary to the principles of our Constitution was the monopoly — the exclusive
system that has succeeded the former — and Mr. Ketchum is kind enough
to make an anterior reference to the period when all enjoyed the appro-
priation for the purposes of education. I stop him there, and say, that ho
makes a wrong application. He ought not to prejudice the minds of Sen-
ators or the community, by pretending that the Secretary's Report charges
on that state of things any trenching on the enjoyment of the largest
liberty.
Mr. Ketchum goes on : " In the city of New York, as I shall have occa-
sion to show by and by— and more or less I suppose it is so in all the States
of Christendom — there are voluntary associations — charitable associations
— associations composed of men incorporated or otherwise, who are willing
to proffer their services to feed the hungry ; to clothe the naked ; to visit
the destitute, and to see to the application of funds set apart for their relief.
Such men arc always to be found in large cities ; men of fortune, men of
leisure, men of benevolence, who are willing to associate together for be-
nevolent objects, and who are usually made the almoners of the charity of
others."
Now, Mr. Ketchum, in the whole of this, is gliding imperceptibly to the
point he wishes to reach. And what is that point? It is to fix on the minds
of the Senators that as religious societies formerly took care of their poor, and
SPEECHES IN CAKKOLI. HALL. 205
as other associations take care of other objects of benevolence, so they were to
look upon the Public School Society as taking care of education. In endeavor-
ing to etfect this conclusion, his reasoning glides imperceptibly as on a colored
surface which is black at one extremity and white at the other, but in which
the various shades are so nicely mingled that you cannot ascertain the point
where the change of color begins, so does the progress of his sophistry elude
observation. " Charitable Associations." Now, I will examine Mr. Ketchum's
philosophy here. I consider that there is here what may be called a rhetorical
fiction. He personifies the city of New York and calls it " she " — then he
takes her and places her one side, and places all the religious societies, and
benevolent societies — -the Public School Society amongst the rest, and that being
done, he says, the city of New York made them her " almoners." But when
we take these societies away where is "she" ? what becomes of her? (laughter
and cheers.) This is what I call a rhetorical fiction. Mr. Ketchum need not
pretend to say that the city of New York made " almoners." They were self-
created. When you take the religious societies, each having its charity school,
and this society, which we must not call irreligious, although it has always de-
feated its opponents by saying that they profess religion — these constitute the
people of New York, and they received the money set apart for that specific
purpose, and in their sovereign power and wisdom they applied it as they
thought proper. They managed it with perfect harmony, for I never heard of
the occurrence of a dispute when each section of the Community assumed the
management of their own schools, and it was on account of a charge against
one society of misappropriating the public money that the controversy arose.
Afterwards referring to the Legislature by which that state of things was
changed to the present, he says : — •" Hence, after many discussions in the As-
sembly chamber, discussions at which all the members were invited to attend
— and almost all of them did attend — for we had generally a quorum, although
it was before a committee night after night — theCommittee of the Assembly at
length made a report favorable to the prayer of the memorial ; but suggesting
in that very report whether even so much as was granted in the proposition re-
fen-ed to was not a violation of sound principle ; whether, in fact, religious
societies ought to participate in the enjoyment of the fund at all, because, by
such participation, the J&w might be made to support the doctrine of the
Christian, and vice mrsa, the Christian that of the Jew, the Catholic of the
Protestant, the Protestant of the Catholic, and so on."
What a splendid discovery ! The people hitherto living in perfect harmony,
all enjoying that appropriation of public money — not, perhaps, expending it in
the wisest manner, but at all events without disturbance or dispute. But all
at once it is discovered that because they are religious societies, it would be a
violation of sound principle to allow them the public money ! And why ? Be-
cause in that case the money paid by a Protestant might pass to the support
of a Catholic school — or, if you please, to the school of a Jew— and that involved
a violation of conscience. I confess, however, I cannot see that, nor do I think
any reflecting man can see it. But what is the fact respecting the turn of the
legislation in relation to the Public School Society, called, at that time, the
"Free School Society?" Simply that because at that Bethel Baptist Church
money had been improperly appropriated, occasion was taken not to punish
the guilty party, if there was guilt, but those \vho had memorialized against
the abuse of public money, and to disfranchise every man professing religion,
because the members of one particular church had abused their trust ! And it
is suspected that all this was not done without the secret instrumentality of
that very Free School Society itself, which then, as at the present day, pro-
fessed to have no religion at all. So that in this very Legislature — though I
know that another view of it is perfectly lawful— we see that the reasoning ap-
proved by Mr. Ketchum, would go to brand a stigma on the sacredness of re-
206 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
ligion— it would lead to the inference that because the adherents of one roligioua
sect have abused their trust in the employment of the public money, therefore,
all profession of religion should be an everlasting disqualification ! But I pro-
nounce such an inference unworthy the citizens of a land in whose Constitu-
tion Christianity is recognized. And I ask, where was the usual penctratior.
of Mr. Ketchum when he employed such reasoning ? By the laws of this State,
church property is exempted from taxation, and I am surprised that gentle-
men of such tender apprehensions can rest quietly at night, when they re-
flect that possibly Protestant money is going to make up the deficiency in
the revenue of the State, caused by the exemption from taxation granted
to Catholic churches ! But I see no harm at all in the state of things by
which money is thus transferred. All the churches are represented by all
the people, and it matters not an iota, if churches are exempted, the tax is
l^aid by the members in another form.
So with the Public School money.-, Although in the manipulation of the
money, it might happen that the identical, dollar paid by a Protestant might
pass into the ti-easury of a Catholic School, the Catholic dollar would go
back to replace it in the Protestant School, it would be in the end, all the
same, for the question is not at all about the identity of the money. If the
taxes could be kept separate, and the money paid by the Protestant go into
the Protestant box, and the money paid by the Catholic go into the Catholic
box, sure enough they would get their own money, but it would be all the
same if no such care had been taken. Here I would refer to the case of
chaplains in oar prisons, etc., not one of whom is a Catholic, but who have
often received the contributions ot Catholics, — -have they ever complained
that that was a violation of the constitution? Certainly not, and that prac-
tical view of the matter should have taught the gentleman the'futility of his
reasoning — that if the money of the one sect went into the hands of another
it was all the same — it was the money of the people received from them in
one form, and returned to them in another, allowing them in its employment
the noble and g'rand privilege — of which I trust they will not allow them-
selves to be deprived, no matter how they exercise it — of obeying the dic-
tates of their own free consciences (cheers).
In the conrse of his speech the gentleman makes a grand display of all the
sects that were set aside by the society. Then he asks the Senate "will this
honorable body grant to Catiiolics what was denied to all these ?" But
there is a difference here, and what is it? There is not on record, an in-
stance of a complaint on the part of any of these sects that their rights of
conscience were invaded. Episcopalians never made any such complaint—
nor did Presbyterians — nor did Methodists — nor did any of the other sects,
— but it happened that they had charity schools attached to their churches,
and they tlionght giving such education as the state required, they were en-
titled to their sliare of state bounty. But very diiferent was the case of the
Catholics. And now suppose tlie circumstances of the case were reversed,
and Catholics had the majority on which the society depends, and would era-
ploy the power conferred by it, in forcing on the whole community Catholic
books — and Catholic versions of the Bible — and give the children lessons
about the burning of Servetus, and the ignorance of a whole nation in sup-
posing the machine for winnowing corn, to be an impious invention, and de-
nonnoing these employing it as guilty of a crime against God who supplies
the zephyrs and the breeze — suppose that case, and that the aggrieved mi-
nority complained and applied for redress, I trust that on the face of the
earth tliere would not be found a Common Council of Catholics who would
refuse to listen to so just a prayer ?
Mr. Ket(!hiun says further wlien speakiog of the action of the Common
Council on this application, that it had been referred to a law committee, and
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 20'!
he quotes the decision of that committee. "We, knowing the manner in
which onr former applications were disposed of, need not, of course be sur-
prised at tlie manner in which this Report was expressed. To onr last ap-
plication made in the spring of 1830, — when I was absent from this cuuutiy
— to the Board of Assistant Aldermen, the usual negative was given ; but
then it is to be oliserved that that Board was surrounded by tlie advocates
of the Society, and these things which we have stated, and which they have
since acknowledged, were denied by them — and on that denial was grounded
the refusal of our application. The advocates of the society denied that
there were any passages in their books with which he could find fault —
averi-ed that they contain nothing disrespectful to our religion. But since
then, they have been obliged to retract that, and to acknowledge repeatedly
that in making these assertions they were not sustained by truth — that there
were passages in those books reflecting upon our faith — that these passages
had been taught to the children for years, and would have been'retuined till
this very day, had it not been for our detection and exposure. But it was
not at all surprising that under the infiuence of a sooietj', stretching its gi-
gantic branches over every quarter of the city, and hearing such assertions
from its advocates, the Board should deny our claim. — But let us glance at
the conolusion which Mr. Ketchum draws from such denial — he says : —
" That conclusion was ratified by their constituents ; and I believe that
every one of the religious societies, or nearly so, excepting the Roman Cath-
olics, acquiesced in that decision. But that society, year after year, has
come before the Common Council and renewed their request for a separate
portion of the school fund. AVith the best feelings for the applicants, in a
spirit of kindness ; with every disposition to do whatever could be done for
them, year after year, and without respect to politics, whether tlie one party
was in the ascendant, or the other party was in the ascendant, the Common
Council have, with almost entire unanimity, disallowed that request ; and I
believe that never in either Board, since the division of that body into two
Boards, has there been but one dissenting voice raised against the ratifica-
tion of that decision. Now, if the committee please — who have complained?
The Roman Catholics."
I repeat that I deny the philosophy of this reasoning. I deny that in any
case that portion, at least, of the community that has petitioned for a reform
of this system, ever looked to the Common Council as their representatives
on this question. And another argument against Mr. Ketchum's position is
that this public council were partizans in the case in which they were called
to deliver judgment. And I think that it would he well for that Public
School Society and the Common Council, if the latter by their election to
office are to be engrafted into the former, that the duty of judging between
them and the community, were delegated to disinterested parties.
Mr. Ketchum goes on to say : " No disrespect was intended them. The
Common Council, and every person engaged in the discussion of the ques-
tion on behalf of tlie Common School Society, took great care to say, ' we
do not reject you because you are Roman Catholics;' and as evidence of
this truth, we give you the fact that we have rejected similar applications
from powerful protestauts — but we reject your request -because we believe
that a sound general principle will not allow us to grant it." ^
So there was always a precaution observed. Indeed I myself remarked
that before the Common Council. They uniformly — with one exception —
said that they did not oppose us because we were Catholics. But Dr.
Spring wilh great magnanimity and candor neglected to take the hint, but
declared that he was apprehensive of our faith gaining ground. He would
oppose us and preserve the society as it was, even though the rights of the
Catholics should be damaged ; and tliat for his part he preferred the
208 aEjHbisiiop ritJGHKS.
religion of Voltaire to that of Fenelon ! The sentiment was indeed a black
one, and it was rendered blacker by the brightness of the candour with
which it was uttered.
Here again Mr. Ketchum states what is incorrect. He says : " We have
rejected similar applications from powerful Protestants."
I deny that. I refer him to the records of the Common Council, and I
will venture to afBrm that he will not find there one " similar application."
And why ? Simply because there Avas no ground for any such application.
For although one denomination of Protestants may differ from another
and may carry their attachments to their respective dogmas to great length,
vet there is one common ground on which they all, so far as I know,
without exception, meet. What is it ? That the Bible alone, as understood
by each individual, is their rule of faith. TJiey could therefore unite on
their public school question so far as the Bible was concerned. _ But then
they require that Catholic children whose creed never admitted that
principle should be taught that doctrine. They had not the same reason
that we had to go before the Common Council. We felt that we might as
well at once give up to them our children and allow them to educate
them as they pleased, as send them to their schools. I deny then the state-
ment "that similar applications were made."
He proceeds : " I say that the Corporation has been desirous, so far as
that body possibly could, so far as they felt themselves at liberty, consist-
ently with the maintenance of a sound general principle, to accommodate
these parties. They have granted a privilege out of this fund to the
Roman Catholic denomination, which has not been granted to any other.
The Sisters of Charity, so called, under direction of the Roman Catholic
Church, and connected with it, (I believe I am right — if not I should be
happy to be corrected,) established a most benevolent institution in the
city of New York, called the Orphan's Asylum — the Roman Catholic
Orjjhan's Asylum. They took into this institution poor and di stitute
orphans. They fed and clothed them most meritoriously — and they thus
relieved the city of New York of the maintenance of many who would
otherwise, probably, have been a charge upon it. After long discussion,
and with some hesitancy, yet overcome by the desire to oblige, and aware
of the limitation arising from the very nature of that institution, the
Corporation did permit the Catholic Orphan Asylum to receive money from
this fund ; and during the last year it received some $1,463 for the educa-
tion of about one hundred and sixty-five children — in common with the
institution for the blind, and the deaf and the dumb, and those other bene-
volent and Christian institutions which are altogether of a Catholic char-
acter in the most comprehensive acceptation of that term — as they are
under no sectarian influence or government."
And pray what sort of an institution is the Protestant Orphan Asylum ?
Is religion not taught there? And yet Mr. Ketchum singles out the Catho-
lic Orphan Asylum and speaks of the favor conferred on it, in order to show
the liberality of the Common Council. We are, indeed, grateful to that
body for having placed ours on the same footing with other institutions . of
a kindred character. But the Common Council have granted money to the
Protestant Half-Orphan Asylum, and denied an application upon a similar
grant to the Catholic. How can Mr. Ketchum assert that a '' privilege "
has been granted to us exclusively ? In reference to our last application
Mr. Ketchum proceeds : —
" The subject, I repeat, underwent a very full and free discussion ; and, after that
had terminated, the Board of Aldermen gravely considered and discussed the subject;
and, at length, after some delay, came to the conclusion that they would go and visit
the schools. Some of the members of the Board of Public Schools, feeling sensibly
SPEECHES IN CAEEOH HALl. 209
Mive on the subject, expressed to me an apprehension that this was a mere erasion, and
they feared that the question had now become mingled with politics. But I said, wait,
fentlemen ; let them go and see your schools — it is a natural desire— they ought to go.
t is a great and delicate question, and they ought to be acquainted with it in all its de-
tails. They went and visited the Public Schools, and the Roman Catholic Schools, and
they incorporated the result of their deliberations in a report which I have befnre me,
and from which I shall quote by and by. It is drawn up with great ability, and the de-
cision was, with but one dissenting voice, that the prayer of the petition'should be re-
jected ; and it was rejected."
On this I remark in reference to what I have, I believe, already referred
to, that there has been always a panacea for every evil — the appointment
of a committee to visit the schools. Why this is one of the easiest things
ill the world ? A little training — a little arrangement — a judicious wink to
Ihe teachers — will prepare every thing so that it will be very hard if a
pleasing exhibition could not be got up in any one of those schools for one
hour, on any day out of the three liundred and sixty-five in the year. But
this has been the invariable remedy — no looking at the wounds which the
system was from year to year, and from day to day, inflicting on less
favored portions of the community — no visit to the back streets and miser-
able lanes of this city, in which so large a proportion of its future inhabit-
ants are grovelling in exposure to vice and degradation. Nothing of that
■was thought of. But the schools enriched by the expenditure of more than
a million of money were inspected, and the gratified and approving visitors
returned to the Common Council to make their report that it was an excel-
lent system, perfect in its details, and admirable in its working, and it was
only the absurd bigotry and extreme ignorance of the Catholics that j)re-
vented them from reaping its benefits !
"When he compares with all this, the state of our humble schools. Well,
I will not pretend to say that the Catholic schools were in the best order.
But here I remark that whilst at every stagehand step of the progress of
this question, I have been obliged to controvert false statements, I can
challenge them to point to a single instance in which they could dispute
the truth of any of- our documents. And now I will give a passing notice
to that visit to the Catholic schools. Hear this statement. This committee
say:—
"We also visited three of the schools established by the petitioners, and we found
them as represented, lamentably deficient in accommodations, and supplies of books
and teachers ; the rooms were excessively crowded, and poorly ventilated, the books
much worn, as well as deficient in numbers, and the teachers not sufficiently numerous ;
yet, with all these disadvantages, though not able to compete successfully with the
Public Schools, they exhibited a progress which was truly creditable ; and with ine
same means at their disposal, they would doubtless soon be able, under suitable direc-
tion, greatly to improve their condition."
Such is their testimony.
And now shall I pass over this opportunity of making a comparison ?
When questioned before the Senate, the Society stated that they could not get
the children to come, and here are our schools crowded to excess ? I can
show you in a room not ranch larger than the square of the distance between
two of the columns supporting the gallery of this building in which we are
now assembled, upwards of two hundred children crowded together ! Yet
the Public School Society are obliged to pay $1,000 a year of public money
to visitors for the purpose of gathering children to their schools. For the
fact came out in the course of the investigation that they paid tliat sum
yearly to tract distributors for the purpose I have stated, whilst we in our
poverty could not find room or books or teachers for the multitudes of chil-
dren that thronged upon us, and whom this exclusive system consigns to »
degradation and ignorance and vice unless something he done for them by
others ! (Cheers.)
14
210 AECHBISHOr HTTGHES
Snoh is the testimony of that very committee. And yet the decision to
which they came is quoted by Mr. Ketchum as proof that " a great princi-
ple,"— of which no definition however is given from the beginning to the
end of his speech, — prevented them from granting our petition. Well, I
have called your attention already and would do so again to a point that
shows as clear as noon-day that this denial was not benevolent towards us, nor
in accordance with equal-handed justice. They had opposed ns as a sect—
as being Catholics. The Secretary of State, however — a man whose integ-
rity of character — ^legal knowledge — and profound and statesmanlike views,
have elevated him to the highest rank "in the community, — placed the ques-
tion on entirely differenL grounds. Mr. Ketchum in the last sentence of his
•peech before the Common Council declared that to the Public School So-
ciety the discharge of their duties were rather a burthen, which nothing but
the extreme benevolence of their nature had prompted them to assume, and
unless they were saved from this continued agitation they would throw it off.
Well, Mr. Spencer excludes all those objectionable features and places the
question on a broad basis, entirely removed from all sectarianism, and then
where are those benevolent gentlemen who were burthened with their
charge — these " humble almoners " of the public bounty ? At Albany,
ready for a new fight I Not for their schools, but to oppose the Secretary,
for Mr. Spencer only wishes to make education like the air we breathe, the
land we live in ; like other departments of human industry and enterprise,
free ! He would not hold the balance so as to afford the least advantage to
any paky, but would make all equal, and secure to them the enjoyment of
the rights established by the constitution of the country, and who opposed
him ? The Public School Society. Their interests were not invaded, but
they could not admit the principle that we were to receive education con-
sistently with the laws of the State ? Why ? You will find that in the
course of Mr. Ketchum's speech, he says the Public School Society could
not stand one day if education were made free ! If the monopoly which
they have wielded for sixteen years should be touched by the little finger of
free trade they would perish. " They cannot live a day." And, gentlemen,
if they cannot live one day on the principles of justice and freedom, then I
say that half-a-day's existence is quite enough for their exclusive system.
We have seen that Mr. Ketchum has introduced the committee to the
schools, and now he comes to the point. "Who, then, complain of the
operations of this system? Our fellow-citizens, the Roman Catholics.
Failing to get from the hands of a body thus constituted, the redress for
the grievance which they complained of, they come here and ask it of yon.
I say they come here, because I will presently show you from their memo-
rials, that none lut they come here."
He has brought it round to that, and he thinks if that be established the
same prejudices — the same means that were employed to defeat us in New
York would be equally efficacious at Albany. He says : " Failing to ac-
complish their purpose through the Common Council of the City of New
York, they come and ask it here. Failing in their application to a body of
representatives, to whom they have applied year after year, and who repre-
sent a population in which is intermingled a greater mass of Roman. Catho-
lic voters than in any other district of the State of New York."
See the advantage he takes of our known forbearance, and their activity
Because we, with honorable motives that should have been better appre-
ciated, abstain from making this a political one. But they did make it
such a question, and endeavored to deter all public men from rendering
justice to the oppressed Catholics. Now I am no politician — I belong to
no party — and I can also, perhaps, speak with the greater freedom, because
we have highminded friends and opponents too, amongst both political
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 211
parties, and I can, perhaps, give a satisfactory answer to Mr. Ketclium'g
allusion to " voters." Alter the election of the Governor, the papers in the
views of this societj' referred to it as a warning, and not only so, but indi-
viduals here wrote to the Governor in terms of reproach against the Cath-
olics and the Irish for not having been more grateful to him. They taunted
him with it. And how is that to be answered ? I should be sorry that
ever the Irish .should be ungrateful, under any circumstances, or ever forget
a friend ; and especially at a time when the high and noble principles of
justice and equality laid down by the fathers of this country seem to be
passing into rapid oblivion, if a public man stands up for the riglits of even
the Immblest portion of the community, he is entitled to the gratitude and
esteem of every man who loves his country. Not that the Governor con-
ferred on us any peculiar favor — I disclaim that — he never asked any thing
for us but what we conceived our right. But still he was taunted with
references to the ingratitude of the Irish, it was said " There is what you
got by advocating the cause of the Irish." That shows whether we made
our question a political one — and I am glad, in one sense, that the Irish did
not vary from the principles in politics to which they had been in the
habit of attaching themselves, because that demonstrates that whatever
may be the opinion of calculating politicians respecting the Irish, that
portion of the community have perhaps, after all an integrity of char-
acter and purity of principle which is not unfrequently found wanting
amongst more elevated classes of both political parties. It was discovered
then that the Irish would not abandon their principles through selfish
motives. But now let me ask what was the case on the other side? Many
of them turned directly round, abandoning all their old political associa-
tions and friends, in order to let Governor Seward know how much he had
dared when he declared for justice and equal rights to all (cheers).
Such was the case, and our opponents cannot deny it. Mr. Ketchum
then is unfortunate in his allusions. He ought not — if he had what I shall
not now mention^f he had presence of mind, I will say, he ought not to
have alluded to that matter at all, because it has brought up the proofs of
what was done by his own clients, while our vindication is triumphantly
effected. We have thus been enabled to refute all the charges urged against
us from the pulpits and religious presses at the disposition of the Society,
that we made a political question of it, and so forth. They did ; — but we
did not.
Gentlemen, I have dwelt longer on some topics than I intended, and have
made less progress in my review of this speech than I anticipated. On to-
morrow evening I will proceed with my remarks. [Loud and long-con-
tinued applause.]
' [On Friday evening the Bishop attended according to his intimation at
Carroll Hall, where, notwithstanding the extreme inclemency of the wea
ther, a very considerable audience was assembled. It was, however, deem
ed e?;pedient to adjourn 'the meeting till the following Monday.]
MONDAY EVENING, Jitne 31st.
On Monday evening an immense number of persons assembled to hear
the conclusion of the Right Rev. Prelate's Speech. The aisles and galleries
of the large hall in which the audience congregated, were densely crowded,
and in the body of the house it was impossible to obtain a seat for a con-
siderable time before the meeting was organized. Amongst those present
212 , AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
we noticed the Lieutenant Governor of the State, and many distinguished
Senators.
Shortly before 8 o'clock, Thomas O'Connor, Esq., was called to the chair
amid the acclamations of the meeting, and after the minutes of the former
lueetings had been read by B. O'Connor, Esq., the Secretaiy, the Right
ReT. Bishop HtiGHBS rose and was received with deafening applause. On
its subsidence he proceeded as follows :
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — I have had occasion already to observe
that the question which we are now discussing, has passed, or at least is
now passing through the second stage of its progress. In the first stage
we had to apply to the city authorities, and we were obliged by the circum-
stances of the case, and for reasons that I have already mentioned, to apply
in a character which we did not desire, but which was forced upon us by
circumstances, over which we had no control. The issue of that applica-
tion is known. Then we laid our grievances before the Legislature of the
State, and the Secretary of State to whom the question had been referred,
placed it upon grounds, altogether different from those on which it had
hitherto been considered. Consequently it was necessary for me in review-
ing Mr. Ketchum's speech, to consider it under two heads. And hitherto
my remarks on it have applied to the question under the circumstances
in which it was, previous to its reference to the Legislature of the State.
We have now however to consider it on the ground on which it has been
placed, in the able, and eloquent, and liberal report of the Honorable Mr.
Spencer. And I cannot avoid observing in the first place, that taking into
account, the principles of equality and of justice that pervade that docu-
ment, I did conceive that the Public School Society could not have found
any objections againstit. For you will recollect that Mr. Spencer removes
entirely the objections urged before the Common Council against the
recognition of our claims. These objections were grounded on the principle
that no sect or religious denomination had anything to do with the money
appropriated for the purpose of education. The Secretary has completely
obviated that objection. He has regarded the petitioners in their civil
capacity. He has exhibited the broad and general grounds on which every
public institution in this country is conducted, but we find these gentlemen,
nevertheless, as zealous, and their advocates as eloquent against Mr.
Secretary Spencer, as they had been against us. There can be no charge
now that a recognition of our claims would favor sectarianism — a union of
Church and State. All that has disappeared, and with it we had hoped
would have disappeared the opposition to our claims.
I will now follow Mr. Ketchum in his arguments before the Senate. And
first of all I would direct your attention to the number of times in which
he repeats that the petitioners are Catholics. He twists and turns that in
a variety of ways, in order to convince the Senators that though we applied
in the character of citizens, that advantage was to be taken away from us,
and we were to be clothed before that honorable body with our religious
character by the hand of Mr. Ketchum ! I should have less confidenee in
the stability of this government — less afifection for its constituted author-
ities, if I thought that such a circumstance could militate against us in the
minds of those gentlemen, who have been elevated by the suffrages of the
people to the guardianship of equal rights. (Cheers.) I conceive, therefore,
that Mr. Ketchum has mistaken the character of that assembly — that he
has exerted himself in vain to fix on as the epithet of Roman Catholics,
when we appeared in the character of citizens, and when our light in
worship God according to the dictates of our conscience had been already
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HAIL. 213
a priori recognized by the constitution of the country. And I ask, is there
any crime in Ijeing a Roman Catholic ? Is there any advantage to be
gained in bringing that against us? Is there anything in the liistory of
the country -wliich could justify the hope of prejudicing the minds of
senators by such lin allusion ! No. In the days when men stood side by
side and shoulder to shoulder, and blood touched blood in the battle strife,
and with their brave swords they won the freedom of their country, was it
asked who is a Catholic or who is a Protestant ? (Loud Cheers.) Had Mr.
Ketchum forgotten the names and deeds of Kosciusko, of Pulaski, or
LaFayetto, and the Catholic Soldiers of Catholic France ? Was there any-
thing said against that religion by the fathers of our country when they
laid the foundation of the liberties we now enjoy ? "Was there anysuch
charge against Charles Carroll when he came and signed that glorious
declaration, risking more than all the other signers together ? No. Nor
have we any cause to be ashamed of our religion, and God forbid we ever
should !_ I throw back, then, that maneuvre of Mr. Ketchum, and I tell
him this is not the country whose constitution makes apparent to the
world, that to be a Roman Catholic involves a deprivation of the rights
and privileges of citizenship.
^ Last year a petition was presented to the Senate, signed by Catholics
alone — this year the petition had other signatures. True, the petitioners
were generally Catholics, but others signed it too, and I hope and believe
that they thought they asked but for justice. However, Mr. Ketchum, in
order to accomplish his purpose, takes up the petition presented last year,
and taunts the Secretary as if he were guilty of artifice in making it appear
that the members of other religious denominations had joined in oui
petition. He says : " Probably, (continued Mr. Ketchum,) that circum-
stance was discovered by the Secretary's sagacity, between 1840 and 1841."
What does he mean by that allusion, except to remind the Secretary that
it was by prejudicing the public mind, by misrepresentations, that certain
partizans succeeded in diminishing the vote for his Excellency the Gov-
ernor ? If Mr. Ketchum does not intend that by this delicate hint, I should
like to know what he does mean. He then affects to take up the objections :
" Cue of the complaints is that the people are not represented in this Public
School Society ; that here is an agency used for a great public purpose
which the people do not directly choose ; and they complain of the Public
School Society being a close corporation."
Certainly all these are grounds of complaint, and all these are so clearly
set forth in the Report of the Secretary, that you have but to read that
document to^see that Mr. Ketchum cannot shake one solitary position of
that honorable gentleman. Is not the Public School Society a close cor-
poration? And is not Mr. Secretary Spencer's Report calculated to place
it on the same basis on which all our free public institutions are founded ?
Is the Secretary not a Reformer, then, in reference to that Society ? He
does here precisely what Lord John Russell attempts to do in England,
when he endeavors to break down the monopoly of the corn laws and to
make bread cheap. Mr. Spencer wishes to break down the monopoly of
education, and to make-voting and education, the bread of knowledge,
cheap. That is to say, that the same people who are supposed to be capa-
ble of choosing a Sheriff, or a Governor, or a President, without paying for
the privilege, should also have the right of choosing the teachers of their
children, without paying $10 for it. (Cheers.) Mr. Ketchum passes over
that very lightly. That is a point not to be seriously dwelt upon, and he
glides into the old charge prepared before the Common Council, and takes
up the old objections, although not one of them was presented in the peti-
tion beforo the Senate. Keeping always before the mind of the Senators
214 ARCHBISHOP HrGHES.
that we are Catholics, he afifects to take up these objections, and says :
" Now, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact now to be
stated. There is no complaint in these memorials, nor will you hear any
from any source, that the Public School Society does not furnish to all the
chiklreu who attend their schools a good literary education."
Let me caution Mr. Ketchum not to be so fast, and I will give him _ my
reasons. From the manner in which the examinations are conducted, it is
the easiest thing in the world to have all ready prepared for the day of
visitation ; when the examiners present themselves, pet classes are arranged,
and in them pet pupils, who will perform their part admirably well. It is
easy to have all this array, and so it is to be regarded rather as an exhibi-
tion than an examination. But, if they desire their examinations to create
universal confidence, let them have them as they are conducted in European
Universities, where the pupils stand forward, and any person who chooses
examines them, when not the choice and prepared pupils are taken, but the
subjects of examination are selected indiscriminately from the classes. Let
such a method be adopted here, and I will venture to say that Mr. Ketchum
will not have anything to boast of over other schools. (Cheers.) I do not,
however, blame the visitors for not finding fault with the external manage-
ment of these schools. I think it excellent ; and the best proof of the sin-
cerity of that opinion was afforded in our willingness to adopt, and place
the superintendence of our schools in the hands of these very gentlemen.
But Mr. Ketchum goes on :
" The Roman Catholics complain, in the first place, that they cannot conscientiously
send their children to the Public Schools, because we do not give religious instruction
in a definite form, and of a decided and definite character. They complain, in the sec-
ond place, that the school books in common use in the Society, contain passages reflect-
ing upon the Roman Catholic Church. And they complain, in the third place, that we
use the Bible without note or comment — that the school is opened in the morning by
calling the children to order and reading a chapter in the Bible, — our common version.
These are the three grounds on which they base their conscientious scruples."
Now it is a fact that we do not complain of any one of these things in our
petition to the Senate. One of these complaints was expressed in the peti-
tion to the Common Council, and I have already explained the reasons of
that presentation. But in the petition to the Senate, we said in general
terms, that the conscientious scruples of a large portibn of our fellow-citizens
were violated by the system pursued in these schools. I will, however,
take up these objections in order.
Mr. Ketchum says that we complain, in the first place, that we cannot
send our children to the schools of the Public School S'ociety "because
religion is not tliere taught of a decided and definite character." Mr. Ketchum
certainly has not stated that objection correctly, for I defy him to find such
words in our petition. "We complained in general against these schools, that
,by divorcing religion and literature, they endangered the best interests of
cliildri<n who were to grow up to be men, and who, to he useful members of
the community, should have their minds imbued with correct principles, and
could not be so without being made acquainted with some religious princi-
ples. But we never complained that tliey did not give " definite religions
instruction." Far from it, and when Mr. Ketchum asserted that we did, I
am sorry to say that he asserted what he must or might have known to be
untrue. And how do I prove it? In our propositions to the Committee of
the Common Council, when they had gone through with their ceremony of
visiting the schools, and the Society had offered their propositions, the very
last article of our proposal was in these words : — " But nothing of their 'i. e.
Catholic) dogmas, nothing against the creed of any other religious denomina-
tion, shall be introduced." Mr. Ketchum saw that, and I ask him, how could
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 215
he undortake to make an argument by substituting language entirely difTer-
ent from ours, and presenting it as our objection? How could he say that
we lound fault with the Public School Society for not teaching religion in a
" definite form," when they always disclaimed the right to teach it at all,
and considered it a crime for any denomination to ask for it ? This is what
I call substitution — ^invention — a course unworthy of Mr. Ketchum, — of his
profession, and of that society of which he was the organ.
I am well aware that to a hasty reader Mr. Ketohum's speech will appear
very logical indeed. But I have at the same time to observe, that while he
reasons logically, by drawing correct inferences from Ids promises, he
has taken care previously to change the premises, and instead of taking
our principle as submitted by us, he gradually shifts it — ^preserving, how-
ever, enough to deceive a cursory reader-^until he substitutes one entirely
different, from which he reasons very logically, of course. Let us sup-
pose Mr. Ketchum a professor of law in some university — for I have no
doubt he could fill such a cliair, and adorn it too, if he would — and im-
agine him addressing a class of studentss H^ says, "Gentlemen, one of the
most important things in our profession is to know how to conduct an argu-
ment, wliicli you must always do with logical precision. And to eflFect this
you are to follow this excellent rule : — if your facts sustain your conclusions,
well; if not, you must find other facts that will!" (Laughter and loud
cheers.) " The principle of this rule I call the principle of substitution, and
an admirable principle it is, but you must be cautious how you use it, espe-
cially before a judge and jury. But if it is before a public, which reads fast
— for there is a great deal to be read — you will find it work very well.
Recollect then, gentlemen, this great principle — 'substitute ' in your reason-
ing!" (Loud laughter.)
In such a way we might imagine Mr. Ketchum addressing his students
And you will find that few reason illogically. Even the inmates of a Lunatic
Asylum reason very logically. One of them perhaps, imagines himself a
clock, he says, "stand off, don't shake me — I am obliged to keep time."
That is logical reasoning. The only mistake is that he "substitutes" a clock
for a living creature — and reasoning from this substitution he draws the con-
clusions admirably. So it is with Mr. Ketchum. (Laughter and cheers.)
We did not, I tell Mr. Ketchum, ask the Public School Society to teach
religion in any definite form. We never complained of their not teaching
it. We never did ask such an unreasonable thing from men who made it a
crime for religious societies to have any thing to do with the public money.
He then states another objection : — " that the books used in the schools
contain passages reflecting on the Catholic Church." That is true ; and he
says in the third place that we object that " the Protestant version of the
Bible is used, that the schools are opened by calling the children to order,
and reading a passage from that Bible." Not a word of that in our petition.
That is " substitution" again — removing the objections presented by us, and
substituting others, which might, as he supposed, lead to the denial of our
claims on the ground that we object unreasonably.
Mr. Ketchum takes up the objection, and in order to show how unreason-
able' that was, he submits the proposition of the Public School Society —
passing altogether over ours, which common justice required should have
also been presented, as it would have discovered on our part a similar dispo-
sition, and have entirely undeceived the Senators as to any alleged claim to
have religion taught in a definite form.
There was no official declaration guarding against the possibility that, next
year, another Board might not alter all these books to a worse state than
ever — ^and consequently their offer to expunge their books was altogether
nugatory. Mr. Ketchum says, however, " This portion of the report, as
216 ARCHBISHOP HUGHES.
will be seen, has reference to these offensive passages. New, every body
will say, that it is a fair offer— we will strike them out. But, gentlemen of
the conimittJe, I submit whether here, in this country, we must not in mat-
ters of conflicting opinions, give and take." "Well, I do not find the Public
School Society, although very good at "ia/iJJn^," at all disposed to "^ii'e"
any thing. (Laughter.)
" I have no doubt that I can find something in any public school book, of much
length, and containing much variety of matter, reflecting upon the Methodists— upon
the heated zeal, probably of John Wesley and his followers— reflecting upon the Epis-
copalians, the Baptists, and Presbyterians. Occasional sentences will flnd their way
into public discourses, which, if viewed critically, and regarded in a captious spirit,
rather reflect upon the doctrines of all those churches."
In this way he gets over these passages most insulting to us and our religion,
whfch I pointed out to those gentlemen after their having inculcated them
in the minds of the children for sixteen years past! "We have to add,
however, that in examining these books, we found no passages reflecting on
those denominations.
Now I will call your attention to Mr. Ketohum's views respecting conscience
and conscientious scruples. We supposed that when a man could not do a
thing in conscience, the reason was that he thought by doing it he would
offend God. This is what we supposed to be a conscientious difficulty ; and
therefore it was that we did not object — as he says, and as I shall have occa-
sion to treat of presently — to the Protestants reading their version of the
Bible; because believing it right, they could use it with a good comscience.
But we Catholics did not approve of the version, many other denominations
i!o not approve of it — the Baptists and Unitarians for instance, — and one
objection was that Mr. Ketchum and the Public School Socjety would force
nn us the reading of that version against which we had conscientious objec-
tions. We believe that to yield to that, would damage the faith which we
hold to be most pleasing to God. Suppose us to be in error, if you please;
but certainly the Public School Society have no right to rule that we are.
They are not infallible, and consequently should recognize our right of con-
science, as we recognize theirs.
But Mr. Ketchum has battled bravely against these principles, and think-
ing it would be better for us to agree to offend God, and coincide with
1 ho Public School Society, wishes to beat down these scruples. And now
would you have his idea of a conscientious scruple? Ho institutes a com-
parison in order to show how trifling such things are, and he says : —
" On the other hand, there are many passages fr'om the speeches of Mr. Webster,
which have found their way into school books ; and a democrat may say, I cannot go
.Mr. Webster ; my children shall not be taught to admire him. And thus, if we are
captious, we can flnd conscientious scruples enough." ■
So that Mr. Webster's writings are placed, as it were, on a parallel with
the word of God himself; — and a difficulty of which he is the subject is
spoken of in the same way as if it were a difficulty in reference to God !
\m\ what is Mr. Ketchum's conclusion ? That whilst he would trample on
our conscientious scruples about the Deity, to bow with great deference to
the scruples about Mr. Webster, and of this he goes on :—
" However, if it is bona fide a conscientious scruple, there is the end of it ; we cannot
reason with it. But, in the judgment of the Common Council, and as I think must be
the case in the judgment of every man, the difficulty is got over by the proposition
which has been madt."
, Well now jiist let liim extend a little of that indulgence to us in the case
in which our account to our Creator and eternal Judge is involved. But not
60. He next says :''The next complaint is, that we do not give religious edu-
SPEECHES IN CAEKOLL nALL. 217
cation enmigli." TiVliere did Mr. Ketchiim find that? Thit is "substitution"
airain. He has not found tliat in any tiling fi'om us. Ho pi-ooeeds :
"Tlie memorials, all of vvliicb are public — and the speeches and documents v\'hioh
have been employed, and which, if necessary, cau be furnished to the commitlee— all
go conclusively to demonstrate that, in the jndgment of those who spoke for the Roman
I, iitJiolic Church, we ought to teach religion in our public schools— not generally — not
vaguely— not the general truths of religion; but that .specific religious instruction
must be given. Kow, I hardly suppose that this deficiency can be made the subject of
conscientious objection."
r.ut that is a false issue. On none of th(;se points has he stated our objec-
tion. We never objected, as far as Catholic children were concerned, that they
did not teach religion. We complained of a system from which religion was
(according to them) excluded by law. But that on the contrary they did
attempt, surreptitiously, to introduce such teaching, in a form that we did not
recognize. What does ho say then ?
" The third and last complaint is, that our Catholic brethren can not cons;ent to have
this Llible read in the hearing of their children. Now, on every one of these points,
the Trustees have been disposed to go as far as they possibly could in the way of
accommodation; but they never yet consented to give up the use of the Bible to' the
extent to which it is used in the schools. I say the Trustees have never yet consented
to this surrender. But if they can have good authority for doing it, they will do it.
If this Legislature, by its own act, will direct that the Bible shall be excluded, I will
guarantee that it shall be excluded."
Now perhaps, one of the rarest talents of an orator, is that which enables
him to accommodate his discourse to the character of the audience whom he
addresses. But like all rare talents, it should be exercised with discretion.
That the learned gentleman possesses it, however, is proved by the fact, that
the very declarations made by him before the Senate are contradicted by his
statements before the Common Council, and vice versa. Before the Common
Council, in the presence of a number of the clergy, he eloquently denounced
the exclusion of the Bible from the schools. If a compromise depended on
this, he must say " No compromise." Before the Senate, however, he is all
ob.3equeoiL>^ness, " Gentlemen, if you give us authority to exclude the Bible, I
guarantee that it shall be so !"
I recollect the beautiful period with which the gentleman wound up his sen-
timent Ijeforc the Common Council, I remember him saying that '.' it would be
hard to part with that translated Bible — hard indeed, for it had been the con-
solation of many in death — the spring of hope in life —and wherever it had gone
there was liberty and there was freedom, and where it had not gone there was
darkness and there was despotism." But I must apologize for attempting to re-
peat, as I spoil the poetry of his eloquent language. At the time, however, I
thought what a beautiful piece of declamation for a Bible Society Meeting ; for,
on such occasions, owing to the enthusiasm — the sincere enthusiasm — of the
auditor.?, and the oftentimes artiflcial enthusiasm of the speakers, all history,
philosophy, and common sense, occasionally, are rendered quite superfluous.
The most beautiful phrases, resting on no basis but fancy, may be strung to-
gether, and will produce the deepest impression. But I doubt much when we
come to examine the sober reality of the matter whether the poetical beauties of
Mr. Ketchura's Action will not be seen vanishing into thin air. I doubt much,
indeed, whether the libert}', whose origin and progress history has recorded,
will be found to have sprung from "that translated Bible," in any sense, and
especially in the sense of Mr. Ketchum. I, of course, yield to no man in pro-
found veneration foi- the book of God, but there is a point of exaggeration which
does no credit, but injury to that Holy Book.
Let us look at these translations of the Bible. The first was Tyndall's, then
Coverdalo's, and then the Bishop's Bible. These remained till the time of
James the First, and during all that time — a period of about a century — if
218 AKCHBISnOP HUGHES.
ever there was a period of degrading and slavish submission to tyrannical
power in England, it was then beyond all comparison. At the close of this
period a new translation was made and dedicated to the king. It was dis-
covered that the " only rule of Faith and Practice " during all this time was
full of errors and corruption. Every one knows that James was one of the
poorest scions of the poor race from whom he was descended. Yet in their
dedication, the translators appointed to amend the rule of faith by a new trans-
lation, call him the " Sun in his strength," and that from his many and extra-
ordinary graces, he might be called the " wonder of the wokld ! " Now,
during the succeeding sixty or eighty years what were the doctrines of liberty
in England ? It was then that the schoolmen of Oxford and Cambridge taught
from ''that translated Bible" the dogma of " NON-nESISTA^'«E to the eoyal
authority" — that "passive obedience" was the duty of subjects — that no
crime nor possible tyranny of the prince could authorize a subject to rebel.
How could Mr. Ketchum forget all that?
Let us examine the facts of the case and ascertain how correct Mr. Ketchum
was when he said that liberty had always followed the progress of that trans-
lated Bible. You will find that from the period of the Reformation down to
the Revolution, England was sunk to the lowest degree of slavish submission ,
to tyrannical authority. The spirit of old Enghsh freedom had disappeared at
the Reformation, and it was only at the Revolution that, like a ship recovering
its equilibrium after having been long capsized by the storm, that old spirit
righted itself again. But do I speak poetry like Mr. Ketchum ? let me appeal
to facts (loud. cheers.)
We find the fundamental principles of liberty as well understood by our
Catholic ancestors, centuries before the Reformation, as they are at the
present day. They well understood the principle, that all civil authority
is derived from the people, and that those elected to exercise it, are res-
ponsible to those from whom they derive their power.
" By one of the laws of Edward the Confessor, conQrmed by the Conqueror, the duties
of the Wmg are defined ; and it is provided that, unless he should properly discharge
them, he should not even be allowed the name of king as a title of courtesy, and this
on the authority of a pope. The coronation of Henry I. was based on as regular a con-
tract as ever yet took place in market-overt. By the coronation oaths of the several
monarchs between him and John a similar contract was implied. By Magna Charta,
and its articles for keeping the peace between the king and the kingdom, this implied
contract was reduced to writing, and 'signed, sealed, and delivered by the parties
thereto.' In the reign of Henry lit. Bracton, one of his judges, tells us, that since the
king ' is God's minister and deputy, he can do nothing else on earth, but that only
which he can do of right Therefore, while he does justice he is the deputy
of the Elei-nal King; but the minister of the devil when he turns to injustice. For he
is called king from governing well, and not from reigning ; because he is king while he
reigns well, but a tyrant when he violently oppresses the people entrusted to him. .
. . . Let the king, therefore, allow to the law what the law allows to him — dominion
and power — for he is not a king with whom his will, and not the law, rules." — Dublin
Ji&view.
There was the language of a judge in the times before either the Refor-
mation or James' translation of the Bible were dreamed of! I pass to ano-
ther historical event — the crowning of John, on which occasion Hubert,
the Archbishop of Canterbury, fearing that the monarch, from supposing
that his royal blood alone entitled him to receive the kingly ofBce, should
throw the kingdom into confusion, reminded him that no one had such a
right to succeed another in the government unless chosen by the people.
" That no one had a right by any precedent reason to succeed another in the sover-
eignty, unless he were unanimously chosen by the entire kingdom, and pre-elected
according to the eminency of his morals, after the example of haul, the first anointed
king whom God had set over his people, though not a king's son, or sprung of a roval
raie, that thus he who excelled all in ability, should presid'e over all Avith power and
ttuihority. But if any of a deceased king's family excelled the rest of the nation, to hia
SPEECHES IN CARROLL HALL. 219
election they should more readily assent. For these reasons they had chosim Connt
John, the brother of their deceased king, on account as well of his merits as of his
royal blood. To this declaration John and the Assembly assented."
I wonder whether an Archbishop of Canterbury, now, with this translat-
ed Bible in his hand, would dare to utter such language in the presenee of
the monarch when he was about to officiate at a coronation ! Let us now
turn to what occurred after this translation of the Bible. At the execution
of the Earl of Monmouth, there were a number of Protestant divines whc
exhorted him to die like a " good Christian," and the great point on which
they insisted was that the subject was bound to obey the prince with
" passive obedience." But the noble Earl, in whose breast there still burn-
ed something of the principles of the olden times of England, would not
agree to that dogma, and then the divines under the influence of this trans-
lated Bible refused to pray for him. Their last words were, " Then, my
lord, we can only recommend you to the mercy of God, but we cannot pray
with that cheerfulness and encouragement as we should if you had made
a particular acknowledgment."
The same doctrine was prevalent at the time of Tillotson, and he speaks
of it not only as his own opinion, but as that of those for whom Mr. Ketoh-
um claims the honor of being considered the apostles of English liberty ! I
quote from the Dublin Review :
" Amons; those who importuned the unfortunate Lord Russell to make a similar ac-
knowledgment was Tillotston, who, by letter, told him that this doctrine of non-resist-
ance ' was the declared doctrine of all Protestant Churches, though some particular
persons had thought otherwise,' and expressed his concern 'that you do not leave the
world in a delusion and false hope to the hinderance of your eternal happiness," by
doubting the saving article of faith. Within the same period. Bishop Sanderson deliv-
ered the doctrine in the following clear and explicit language. He declares that, ' to
blaspheme the holy name of God, to sacrifice to idols,' &o., &o., ' to take up arms
against a lawful sovereign, none of these, and sundry other things of the like nature,
being all of them simple and de toto genere, unlawful, may be done on any color or
pretence whatsoever, the express command of God only excepted, as in the case of
Abraham sacrificing his son, not for the avoiding of scandal, not at the instance of any
friend, or command of any power on earth — not for the maintenance of the lives and
liberties of ourselves or others, nor for the defence of religion, nor for the preservation
of the Church and State ; no, nor yet, if that could be imagined possible, for the salva-
tion of a soul, no — not for the redemption of the whole world.' This was considered a
very orthodox eS'usion." — Dublin, BevUw.
An article of faith that you dare not under any circumstances resist the
kingly power.
Compare, then, the language of Protestant divines having this translated
Bible before them, with that of Catholic divines at a former period, and see
the ground which Mr. Ketchum has found in England for his poetical as-
sertion. But, perhaps, if we turn our attention to the Protestant govern ■
ment of Europe, we may find his dreani realized. Perhaps he may find his
dream realized in Prussia ? In th^t country there are two principal com-
munions of Protestants, the Lutheran and the Calvinist. Now, the king
calls his ofiioe'rs together, and tells them to draw up a liturgy : decrees that
both will, and shall, and must believe or practice this liturgy ? (Laughter
and cheers.) Or he may go to Sweden, or to Norway, or Denmark, and
the dark despotism of the North, perchance there he may find that liberty,
of which he speaks, progressing with this translation. What kind of free-
dom, let me ask Mr. Ketchum, followed this "translated Bible" to Ireland
—that everlasting monument to Catholic fidelity and Protestant shame !
(Tremendous applause.)
But to come to this country — ^perhaps it was in New England among the
Puritans, that Mr. Ketchum's dream was realized — ask the Quaker !
(Laughter.), Perhaps it was in Virginia — ask the Presbyterian I "Where was
220 AECHBISriOP HUGHES,
it? Let me tell you. It was in Maryland, among the Catholics. Theij
Ikiiew enough of the rights of conseienoe to raise the fiist standard of re-
ligious liberty that ever floated on the breeze in America. (Clieers.) You
may ho told that Roger Williams and his associates in Rhode Island de-
clared equal rights. Not at all — he excluded Roman Catholics from exer-
cising the elective franchise. But the Catholics did not exclude liira.
They may refer to Pennsylvania — the reference is equally untbrtunate, for
Penn wrote from England remonstrating with the Governor, Logan, I be^
Have, for permitting the scandal of Catholic worship in Philadelphia.
Turn, noV, look at the constellation of Catholic Republics, before Prot-
estantism was dreamed of as a future contingency. Look at Venice,
Genoa, Florence, and that little republic — not larger than a pin's head on
the map — San Marino — which has preserved its independence for such a
long course of centuries, lest the science of repubKcanis'm should be lost to
the world ! Look at Poland — when the Protestants were persecuting one
another to the death in Germany, Poland opened her gates to the refugees
and made them equal with her own subjects, and in the Diet of Poland, at
which the law was passed, there were eight Catholic Bishops, and they
must have sanctioned the law,for the liberalism veto gave each the power to
prevent it. I challenge Mr. Ketchum to point out, in the whole history of
the globe, one instance of similar liberality on the part of' Protestants to-
wards Catholics.
Now, what becomes of that beautiful declaration of Mr. Ketchum, that
wherever that translation had gone liberty followed? I know, indeed,
that in this country we all enjoy equal civil rights, but I know also that it
was not Protestant liberality that secured them. They grew out of necessity,
and in the declaration of them there is no difference made between one religion
and another. Catholics contended as valiantly as any other, in the first ranks
of the contest for liberty. And I fervently hope that it is too late in the day
for any one to pretend that Catholics have been so blinded by their religion as
to be unable to know what is liberty and what is not. (Cheers.)
Be it understood, then, that not one of the objections which Mr. Ketchum
has put into our mouths respecting the Bible, was ever presented to the Senate
by us.
Mr. Ketchum having thus disposed of our pretended objections, goes on
to speak of the Secretary's Report.
" Thej will be satisfied with it, it will c;ive them what thev ask. Now, lot us sea
bow ? There is no proposition contained in this report that religious societies, as such,
shall participate in this fund — none."
Then, Sir, I ask what is your objection ? In New York before the Com-
mon Council all your opposition was directed against " religious societies."
Mr. Spencer has removed every ground for that, and I therefore ask what is
your object ? Your object is to preserve the Public School Society in the
monopoly, not only of the funds contributed by the citizens for the. support
of education, but also of the children. He says :
" The trustees of districts shall indicate what religion shall be taught in those schools;
that is to say, that you shall hav% small masses; that these small masses shall elect
their trustees; and as the majority of the people in those small masses hiay direct, so
shall be the character of the religious instruction imparted."
Mr. Spencer wishes to take from the Society that very feature which is
objected to — that is to say, he wishes that religion shall neither be exclud-
ed nor enforced hy law. And yet, Mr. Ketchum, by his old principle of
substitution, makes out quite a different proposition from the Report, and
infers that the Trustees shall have the power to prescribe what religioq
shall be taught. I do not sse that in the Rej>ort at all. On the contrary,
.Am
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 221
the Secretary leaves parents at liberty to act on that subject as they see
proper. Mr. Ketchuni supposes a case to illustrate his view of tlie matter.
which I must say does not do Mm much credit. He says :
" But when a school is formed in the sixth ward of the city of New York, in which
ward (for the sake of the argument we will assume) tlie Roman Catholics have a ma-
jority in the district; they choose their trustees, and these trustees iudicate that a
specific form of religion, to wit, the Roman Catholic, shall be taught in that school —
that mass shall be said there, and that the children shall cross themselves with holy
water in the school, having the right to do so according to this report, the Catholics beinj;;
in a majority there. Then, and not till then, can these Roman Catholics conscientiously
send their children to school — that is to say, their objections lo this system are to be
overcome by having a school to which they conscientiously send their children ; and
that school must be oue in which religion is to be taught according to their particular
views."
That is drawing an inference without the facts, for we never said so, nor
ever furnished Mm authority to say so, and although Mr. Ketchum has the
authority of the Public School Society to speak, yet that does not enable
him, when he states what is not the fact, to make it true. But I wish to
know why he brought up that picture at all — why the sixth ward should
have peculiar charms in his imagination, or why he should have introduced
all that about the children crossing themselves with holy water ? And
pray is it for Mr. Ketchum to find fault with what he supposes to be reli-
gious error, and for which he is not at all accountable ? He has not shown,
nor lias any man shown that such consequences would follow — it is impos-
sible that the Trustees could act so ridiculously as to permit such a thing
— it was incredible that they, being responsible to the oflScers appointed by
the State, and under the eye of such vigilant gentlemen as Mr. Ketchum
and the Public School Society, could permit Mass to be celebrated in the
schools ? Tet such is the picture presented by Mr. Ketchum, quite in ac-
cordance with his old course, and in order to excite popular prejudices, for
which this speech seems to have been so studiously prepared. Por he well
knew that amongst a large portion of the Protestants there is a vast
amount of traditional prejudice against Catholics, which has, from being
repeated incessantly and seldom contradicted, become iixed, occupying the
place of truth and knowledge. Their case reminds me of what is related
of BaroQ Munchausen. It is said that when this celebrated traveler was
old he had a kind oi consciousness that there was some former period of his
life when he knew that all his stories were untrue, but he had repeated
them so often that now he actually believed them to be true ! (Loud laugh--
ter and cheers.)
It is to such persons as are under the influence of these prejudices and
bigotries that Mr. Ketchum addresses his speech, and if he utter the sentiments
of the Public School Society, how, I ask, can we confide to their hands the
training of the tender minds of our children.
But one of the most remarkable things in this speech is, that after having
beaten off in succession the different religious denominations, because, as he
said, they would teach religion — having, in fact, played one sect against the
other — ^Mr. Ketchtim turns round and affirms that the Society itself does teach
religion. He says :
"No, sir. I afHim that the religion taught in the public schools is precisely that
quantity of religion which we have a right to teach ; it would be inconsistent with pub-
lic sentiment to teach less ; it would be illegal to teach more."
The " exact quantity ! " Apothecary's weight! (Great laughter.) Nothing
about the quality except that Mr. Ketchum having made it an objection that
we wished religion in a definite form, he will give it in an indefinite form — a
fine religion — but at all events there is to be the " legal quantity." "Well, now
let us see something about the quality of this religion, and I wish to consider
222 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
the subject seriously. A-nd here let me refer to a beautiful sentiment expressed
by the Secretary in his report— He says that religion and literature have be
come so blended, that the separation of the one from the other is impossible.
A more true or appropriate declaration could not proceed from the lips of any
man wishing the welfare of his country and his kind! (Cheers.)
Now, whenever we made objections to that society for pretending that re-
ligious subjects were excluded by law, it was on these grounds. We said, we
refer you to the experience of public men — to that of the most celebrated states
men in Europe, even to the infidels of France— who have uniformly declared
that society cannot exist except on the basis of religion. All of them, whether
believing in religion or not, have admitted the necessity of having some kind
of religion as the basis of the social edifice. But these gentlemen, in all their
debates, have contended that the education to be given should be "purely civil
and secular." That is their official language. And now for the first time Mr.
Ketchura before the Senate, declares that the society does teach religion, and
exactly the proper quantity ! (Cheers.) Let me now call your attention to a
passage in one of their reading books, in order that we may see a specimen of
this religion. I will now make a few comments on the passage, but I do con-
ceive that there are persons of all those denominations who recognize the doc-
tripe of the Trinity, who could not be induced to have the minds of their
children inoculated with such sentitnents as it contains. Referring to our
blessed Redeemer one of the school-books says :
" His answers to the many insidious questions that were put to him, showed uncom-
mon quickness of conception, soundness of judgment and presence of mind; completely
baffled all the artifices and malice of his enemies; and enabled him to elude all the
snares that were laid for him."
Are these the ideas of the divine attributes of the Redeemer which the
Christian portion of the community wish impressed on the minds of their
children ? That such have been the sentiments taught by the society for
the last sixteen years, they ctmnot deny. And they may account for it as
they please, but it has attracted the attention of many, that for the last six-
teen years the progress of that young and daring blasphemy that trifles with
all that is sacred has increased tenfold in this city. How do I account for
it ? In two ways — first, because a large portion of the young are debarred
from the benefits of education, and, on the other hand, there is the attempt
which has been made to divorce religion from literature. When such causes
exist you need not be surprised to find that infidelity thickens its ranks
and raises on every side its bold and impious front.
I have presented you with a specimen of the quality of that religion which
Mr. Ketohnm says is dealt out with exact and legal measure.
Mr. Ketchum contends that it is a religion of a decided character that we
want. And pray what are we to understand by religion that is not decided?
A religion which is vague — a general religion? What is the meaning of
these terms? I desire to have a definition of them. If there is to be estab-
lished by law a Public School Society-Religion, I should like to have its con-
fession of faith, and be informed of the number of articles, and the nature
of the doctrines contained in them. But it seems to me that Mr. Ketchum
and this Public Scliool Society resemble a body of men who are opposed to
all physicians because they understand medicine, and who, although them-
selves opposed to all practice of medicine, are yet disposed to administer to
the patients of the regular practitioners. And the comparison holds good —
foi-, after all, children are born with a natural moral disease — want of knowl-
edge, and evil propensities — and education and religion are the remedial
agent.? to counteract these evil tendencies and remove the natural infirmity.
Then wo have the practitioners, as they may be termed, coming to see the
patient, the wliole community supplying the medicine-ohest ; and we have
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 223
these men surroundicg this chest and exclq,iming to the physicians, "Clear
off! you are a Thomsouian, and you are a Broussaist, you are a Homojopatliic,
and you are a regular practitioner, and you wish to prescribe remedies of a
decided and definite character, wliich is contrary to "a great principle."
And having thus banished all the physicians they turn doctors themselves
and mix up their drugs into what they call a "genei'al medicine," of whicii
they administer what they call the legal quantity. (Laughter and cheers.)
But the gentlemen forget that neither the patient nor the medicine are theirs.
Those who furnish the patient and supply the medicine-chest should have a
voice in the selection of the doctors.
What do the gentlemen really intend? They object to religious societies,
but after they had got them pushed out of the house, they begin to teach
religion themselves! Mr. Ketohum acknowledges that He an'd Mr. Sedg-
wick, his associate, however, do not appear to have studied theology in the
same school. One says that religion isi^the basis of all morality, the other
that morality is the basis of religion. And, after all, do men agree any more
in their views of morality than religion? Certainly not. And yet you must
give to the children — especially those of that class attending these schools,
for it should be bofne in mind that they, for the most part, do not enjoy tlie
opportunity of parental or pastoral instruction — some supply of religions
education. Tliey are the offspring of parents, who unfortunately cannot
sujjply that deficiency ; and if they are brought up .in this way with a kind
of contempt for religion — or with the most vague idea of it, the most lament-
able results must necessarily follow.
, I now come to another point, the non-attendance of the children at the
schools. Whilst our humble school-rooms are crowded to excess, the Society
have been obliged to give $1,000 a year for recruiting for children. In Grand
street they have erected a splendid building, almost sufficient to accommo-
date the Senate of the State, and besides all that, we find they are able to
lavisli public money in payment of agents to collect children. Mr. Seton,
who has been a faithful agent of the Society, made that fact known, and
stated that by this means 800 children were collected. And to wliom was
this money given? To tract distributors — a very good occupation theirs I
liave no doubt; but at the same time that was rather a singular appropria-
tion by men so extremely scrupulous lest any portion of the public money
should go to the support of any sect. But I suppose that was on the prin-
ciple of what Mr. Ketchum calls ," giving and taking" — that is you give a
tract and take a child. (Laughter and cheers.)
Then we have quite an effort on the part of Mr. Ketchum to prove that
the trustees discharge their onerous duties much better than ofiicers elected
by the people. I will quote his remarks on that point : " This Public
School Society receives its daily sustenance from the representatives of the
people — and the moment that sustenance is withdrawn, it dies, — it cannot
carrj' on its operations for a day."
A, most beautiful subversion of the actual order! For so far from the
Common Council patronizing the Society, it is the Society that patronizes
f he Common Council — taking them into partnership the moment they are
elected, and so far from being dependent on the Council, as was well re-
marked by a greater authority than I am on this subject, the Council were
dependent on the Society. The schools belong to the Society, just as much
IS the Harlem Bridge does to the Company who built it. What remedy is
there then ? The Society, self-constituted, a close corporation, takes into
partnersliip the Common Council, which then becomes part and parcel —
bone of the bone, and fiesh of the flesh — of the Society, and if any differ-
ence arises between the citizens and the Society, a committee of that very
Society adjudicates in the cause ! Thus we have found that the Common
224 AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
Council, after having denied our claim, and oven -wlion about to retire and
fjive place to their successors, followed us to Albany, and their last act —
like that of the retreating Parthian who flung his dart behind him — was
to lay their remonstrance on the table of the tribunal to which we had
appealed.
Mr. Ketchum says : " Here are agents of the people — men who, having a
desire to serve mankind, associate together; they offer to take the superin-
tendence of particular works, they offer themselves to the public as agents
to carry out certain benevolent purposes ; and, instead of paying men for
the labor, they volunteer to do it for you, ' without money and without
price,' under your directions — to do it as your servants — and to give an
account to you and an account to the Legislature. Voluntary public ser-
vice is always more efficient than labor done by servants chosen in any
other way."
So that because they serve gratuitously, they discharge their duties
much better than if elected by the people ! Well, let us improve upon the
hint. Perhaps some of them may be kind enough to discharge the more
important fimctions of the government for nothing ! But if volunteers be
more efficient than officers chosen by the votes of the people, let us abol-
ish the farce of elections altogether. Not satisfied "with this, Mr. Ketchum
also would seem to contend, that the volunteers are not to be held respon-
sible !
To establish his views on this point, Mr. Ketchum refers to charitable
and benevolent institutions. But where is the justice of the comparison ?
The sick are incompetent to secure their own protection and recovery.
The inmates of houses of refuge, on which Mr. Ketchum has a -beautiful
apostrophe, referring to his own share in the erection of that one estab-
lished in this city, are likewise unable to take care of themselves. And
here let me say, in all sincerity, to Mr. Ketchum, that if he and the Public
School Society determine to perpetuate their system, if they continue to
exclude religion from education, and at the same time to deprive four-
fifths of the children, as now, of any education at all — then he had better
stretch his lines, and lay the foundation of houses of refuge, as the appro-
priate supplement to the system. Neither does the comparison hold, as I
have before shown, in reference to lunatic asylums, &c.
Then Mr. Ketchum goes on to illustrate further, and says : " But it is
said, and said too in the report of the Secretary, that he proposes to retain
these Public Schools. How retain them ? One of the features of the' pro-
posed new law is, that all school moneys shall be paid to the teachers.
Under such a law we cannot live a day — not a day."
What an acknowledgment is thatl That a law which would make
education free— giving equal rights to all— would be the death-warrant
of the Public School Society. There is another point on which Mr.
Ketchum does not now dwell so emphatically. He says, that there were
a large number of tax-payers who, wonderful to relate, asked for the
privilege of being taxed, asked for that privilege, for the purpose of
supplying the Public School Society with money to carry out their benev-
olent purposes.
Mr. Ketchum seems to consider that at that time there was a kind of
covenant made between the petitioners to be taxed, and the State authori-
ties, that when they petitioned and were taxed, the authorities of the State
bound themselves to keep up the system in perpetuum. But did these per-
sons ask to be taxed, exclusively, out of their own pockets, or did they ask
for a system of taxation which should reach all the tax-paying citizens of
New York. There is a fallacy in Mr. Ketchum's argument'here. He sup-
poses that because these persona are large property holders, that they are
SPEECHES IN CAEEOLL HALL. 225
thimfoTe,piw excellence, the payers of taxes. He forgets that it is a fact well
understood in the science of political economy, that the consumer is, after
all, the tax-payer— that it is the tenants occupying the pi'operty of those
rich men, and returning them their large rents, who are actually the tax-
payers. And what peculiar merit, then, can Mr. Ketchum claim for these
owners of property, and petitioners to have all the rest of the citizens taxed
as well as themselves? But he insists that there was an agreement, a
co\-enant entered into between them and the State authorities, and if you
interfere with its provisions, you must release these tax-payers from their
obligations as such. With all my heart— I have no objection ! All wo
want is, that there should be no unjust interference — no exclusive system — '
no extraneous authority interposed between the tax-payer and the purpose
for which the tax is collected. But the fact that others besides these pe-
titioners are equally involved in the burthen, demolishes this argument of
Mr. Ketchum.
In his conclusion, the learned gentleman insists, that unless the Society
reniain as it is, it cannot exist. And then he goes on further, for it would
be impossible for him to close his-speech without again reminding the Sen-
ate that we are Roman Catholics.
He says: "The people in New York understand the subject, and the
Roman Catholics cannot say that they will not be heard as well there as
here. Why not leave the matter to us, the people of the city of New
York?" - .
Thus, Mr. Ketchum, after having first endeavored to impress the minds
of the Senate that we had had all imaginable fair-play, that other denom-
inations had made applications similar to ours, which is not the fact, that
our jjetition had uniformly been denied in the several boards representing
the people of New York ; whereas he knew that on this question, the peo-
ple of New York were never represented by the Common Council; he goes
on to say, at last, " Why not leave the matter to us — the people of the city
of New York ?" I trust not, if a committee of the Public School Society,
called the Cgmmon Council, are to be at once -parties and judges, I hope
that the question will not be referred back; although, for Mr. Ketchum's
satisfaction, I may state, that if it were so referred, the Common Council
would not, I will venture to say, now decide upon it by such a vote as they
did before ; when one man alone had the courage, whether he was right orr
wrong, to say nay, when all said yes ! (Loud and long-continued cheering,),
In consequence of that vote, as they have since taken care to tell us, thi&.
gentleman lost his election, but, what is of infinitely more importance, ha-
preserved his honor. (Renewed applause.) Were the matter now before the
Common Council, they would see a thousand-and-one reasons for hesitatioo ,
before deciding as before. For when public men see that any measure is-
likely, to be popular, they can find abundant reasons for taking a favorable
view of the question. I will refer Mr. Ketchum to a sign from whieh hi©
may learn what he pleases. Since the Common Council, that clmfied our -
claims, went out of office, their successors have had the matter b«fdre them,
and when in the Board of Assistants it was proposed to pass a/ resolution
requesting the! Legislature to defer the consideration of the question, the
motion was negatived by a tie vote.
Still Mr. Ketchum will have the end of this speech something like the
end of the last. Then he said this was a most distressing topic to the
gentlemen of the Public School Society — th%t they were men- of peace —
that I do" not controvert, but certainly I must say that i» the course of
this contest they appear to have exhibited a spirit contrary to. their natures !
— but so peaceful were they, Mr.. Ketchum said, that if any longer annoyed
they would throw up their office and retire 1 (Cheers anxyaughter.) But,
15
22G AECHBISHOP HUGHES.
after all, tliey could send their agents to Albany to oppose us there— tlio
r)ne, Dr. Rockwell, to disseminate a burlesque on our faith from Tristram
Shandy — the other, Mr. Ketchum, to plead as zealously, but I think not as
successfully, as ever against the recognition of our claims.
Mr. Ketchum says : " Now the contest is renewed, and' the trustees
engage in it with extreme reluctance ; they have no personal interests to
advance, and they are very unwilling to be put in hostile array against
any Of their fellow-citizens."
Mr. Chairman, the lateness of the hour admonishes me that I have tres-
passed too much upon your patience ; I have but one observation toinake
in conclusion. These gentlemen have spoken much and laid great emphasis
on the importance of morality, but as I have already remarked, morality is
not always judged of by the same criterion. Let me illustrate this. Accord-
ing to the morality which my religion teaches, if I rob a man, or injure him
in his property, and desire to be reconciled to God, I mxist first, of all, if it
be in my power, make reparation to the man whom I have injured. Again,
if I should unfortunately rob my neighbor of his good name — of his repu-
tation— either by accident or through malice, before I can hope for recon-
ciliation with an pifended God, I must repair the injury and restore my
neighbor's good name. If I belie him I must acknowledge the lie as
publicly as it was uttered — tliat is Catholic morality.
Well, now, these gentlemen hdve belied us — they have put forward and
circulated a document which existed only in the imagination of Sterne — a foul
document — and represented it as a part of our creed. I do not say that they
directly required this to be done; but their Agent did it, and he cannot deny
it. I wonder now, then, if they will have such a sense of morality as will
impel them to endeavor to repair the injury thus done to our reputation, by any
official declaration that that is a spurious document ? I wonder if the consci-
entious morality that presides over the " Journal of Commerce " will prompt its
editors to such a course f If it do not, then it is a morality different from ours.
I apprehend that no such reparation will be offered for the injury we have
sustained by the everlasting harangue of a,buse and vituperation that has been
poured out against us for these few years past. Have we not been assailed
with a foul and infamous fiction in the pages of a work called "Maria Monk?"
and have its Reverend authors ever stood forward to do us justice and acknowl-
edge the untruth which, knowing it to be so, they published ? Have they ever
attempted to counteract that obscene poison which they disseminated, comjpt-
ing the morals of youth throughout every hamlet in the land ? Whilst de-
nouncing in their ecclesiastical assemblies the works of Byron and Bulwer, did
they include in their denunciation the filthy and enormous lie, published under
their auspices — the writings of "Mauia Monk?" What idea, then, must we
form of their morality and religion ? And, here, it would be unjust to omit
mentioning that many Protestants, not under the influence of blinded bigotry,
have done us justice on this point. In particular I refer to the conduc 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11